Elements of Dispensational Truth - Volume 1

Transcription

Elements of
Dispensational Truth
Volume 1
R. A. Huebner
Second edition, enlarged
www.presenttruthpublishers.com
ISBN 1-888749-04-0
Made and printed in USA.
First printing 1998.
Reprinted 2011
PTP
Present Truth Publishers
825 Harmony Road Jackson NJ 08527 USA
i
Acknowledgments
The following publishers have kindly granted permission to use material from these copyright books:
Kregel Publications for:
L. S. Chafer, Chafer Systematic Theology, Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, fourteenth printing, August 1980
(eight volume edition), copyright held by Kregel Publications.
Moody Press for:
C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, sec. ed., 1995; copyright 1995, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company for:
O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 1945;
R. Zorn, Church and Kingdom, 1962.
University Press of America for:
Larry V. Crutchfield, The Origins of Dispensationalism, The Darby Factor, 1992, for a chart.
Zondervan Publishing House for:
Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 1992.
*****
The following publisher did not respond to a request for permission to quote, and I trust in their indulgence for some
extracts:
Word, Inc., distributor of Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., for:
John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, 1991.
*****
Thanks are due to C. Ryan and D. Wandelt and for proofreading Part One.
ii
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Part 1: The Mystery as to which Silence was Kept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1.1: Dispensational Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Views on Dispensations
.................................................. 3
The Church is Not an Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Dispensational Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chapter 1.2: Did J. N. Darby’s Teachings Influence The North American Prophetic Conferences
and the Scofield Reference Bible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Influence of Persons Influenced by “Brethren” Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
J. N. Darby’s Work in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
J. N. Darby Did Not “Systematize” Dispensational Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The New Scofield Reference Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Covenant Pretribulationism Alias “Progressive Dispensationalism”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Surrendering Dispensational Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Chapter 1.3: Did the OT Prophets Speak About the Church? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
‘Literal’ or ‘Spiritual’ Interpretation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Bearing of the Mystery of Christ on the Question of Prophetic Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Objections Based on the Three Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Chapter 1.4: The Heavenly and the Earthly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
The Purpose of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
The Church was Formed at Pentecost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
The Heavenly Calling and Seated in the Heavenlies in Christ Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Only One People of God? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Addendum: The Coming Seventieth Week of Dan. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Part 2: The Expected Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Chapter 2.1: What Should the Jews Have Expected?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
A Jew Had to Expect a Temporal Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
iv
Chapter 2.2: What Did The Godly Remnant Expect? ............................................................................................................61
The Expectation of the Remnant and Our Lord ...............................................................................................................61
The Death of Christ Provides Specifically for Israel’s National Future .........................................................................64
Chapter 2.3: The Postponement of the Kingdom ....................................................................................................................67
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................67
Why Was the Moral Presentation of the Kingdom Refused? ..........................................................................................67
God’s Use of Israel’s Stubbornness ..................................................................................................................................68
An Objection to the Offer of the Kingdom by an Authentic Calvinist ...........................................................................70
Does the Amillennial View Make God a Liar? ................................................................................................................74
What if Israel Had Accepted? ............................................................................................................................................75
Conclusion for Part 2 .........................................................................................................................................................75
Part 3: The Two Parentheses ........................................................................................................................................................77
Chapter 3.1: The Gentile Parenthesis of Judgment .................................................................................................................79
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................79
The Earthly, Gentile Parenthesis of Judgment .................................................................................................................79
Failure Made Good by Christ ...........................................................................................................................................80
Chapter 3.2: The Heavenly Parenthesis ............................................................................................................................81
The Designation “The Heavenly Parenthesis” ..................................................................................................................81
The OT Prophecies Allow Room For The Heavenly Parenthesis ...................................................................................82
Chapter 3.3: “This Age” and The Heavenly Parenthesis ........................................................................................................85
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................85
This Age ..............................................................................................................................................................................85
The Announcement by John the Baptist ...........................................................................................................................85
New Characteristics of this Age.........................................................................................................................................87
What Is ‘The Present Dispensation? .................................................................................................................................87
Chapter 3.4: Romans 5:12-21: The Christian Under a New Head .........................................................................................93
Introduction to Romans 5:12-21 .......................................................................................................................................94
Chapter 3.5: Outline of L. S. Chafer’s Views Concerning an Intercalated Age of Grace ................................................. 107
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 107
The Intercalated Age of Grace and What it Entails ...................................................................................................... 107
The Intercalated Age of Grace and the Times of the Gentiles ..................................................................................... 108
Observe The Problem With The Scofield Age-ism Scheme ........................................................................................ 110
Chapter 3.6: Is Man Under Probation Today? ...................................................................................................................... 113
Israel Is Lo-ammi During The Times of the Gentiles ................................................................................................... 113
The Final Test of the First Man Was the Revelation of the Father in the Son ............................................................ 114
The Two Men .................................................................................................................................................................. 114
The Presentation of Christ .............................................................................................................................................. 114
The Testing by Grace Took Place When The Son Was Here ...................................................................................... 115
The Resultant Judgment Pronounced Upon the First Man on the Occasion of His Climactic Sin ............................ 116
Adamic Standing Now Gone .......................................................................................................................................... 117
What About Responsibility Now? ................................................................................................................................. 117
v
Probation of the First Man and the Scofield Age-ism System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Probation of the First Man and the Intercalated Age System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Implications of the Idea That the Mosaic System is Intercalated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Curse on the Fig Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Cutting Down of the Fig Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Olive Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jettison the False Age-ism System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The End of the Testing and Standing of the First Man Explains Two Scriptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians 10:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hebrews 9:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
117
118
119
119
119
119
120
120
120
120
121
Chapter 3.7:Is the Law Dead? No. And What is the Christian’s Responsibility?
Comments Collected from J. N. Darby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Great Truth as to the Christian and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Consequence of the Same Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Law Still Has Its Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
True Christian Responsibility Flows From the Place we are In; Not from the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Where Does Christian Responsibility Begin? Not in the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
124
125
127
129
Chapter 3.8: Is the Law Dead? Yes, Says L. S. Chafer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Law Allegedly Now in Abeyance and to be Reinstated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elements of the Allegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Examination of the Passages Alleged to Prove that the Law is Dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Passages in John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Passages in Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Corinthians 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Passages in Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ephesians 2:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Colossians 2:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hebrews 7:12, 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An Objection to the Law not Being Dead Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
131
131
131
133
133
133
135
136
138
139
139
142
143
Chapter 3.9: The Opening of the Heavenly Parenthesis, With an Answer to So-called Ultradispensationalism . . . 145
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Trial of the First Man Completed at the Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Stumbling of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Baptism in the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There Is Only One Baptism in The Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians 12:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“In Christ” and the Finished Work of Christ for Salvation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Finished Work of Christ For Salvation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Church Divided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joel’s Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Day of Pentecost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Alleged Continuance of the Kingdom Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The “Prophetic Clock” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Distorted Scofieldian Dispensationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
History is Distorted Also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
145
146
148
150
150
152
152
153
154
155
157
158
160
162
162
163
165
vi
Part 4: Does Acts Show that the Church Fulfills the OT Prophecies of the Kingdom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
The Kingdomization of the Church by Antidispensationalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
The Kingdomization of the Church By Covenant Pretribulationists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Chapter 4.1: Acts 1:3-9: Is it at This Time? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Chapter 4.2: Acts 2:16-21: Joel’s Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Chapter 4.3: Acts 2:30-36: Is Christ on David’s Throne Now? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Chapter 4.4: Acts 3: 19-26: The Times of Refreshing and of the Restoration of All Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Chapter 4.5: Acts 4-14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Is Acts 4:23-31 a Fulfillment of Psalm 2:1, 2? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 7:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 7:48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 8:4-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 8:26-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 10:34-43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
189
189
190
190
191
191
192
Chapter 4.6: Acts 15: The Tabernacle of David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Chapter 4.7: Acts 16-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Acts 19:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 20:24, 25; 28:23, 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 24:14,15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 26:6-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 26:22, 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 28:20, 23-25, 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
199
199
200
200
201
201
202
Part 5: The True Jew, The Israel of God and the Seed of Abraham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Chapter 5.1: A True Jew and the Israel of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Chapter 5.2: Galatians 3:1-9: The Principle of Faith as Seen in Abraham is the Way of Blessing . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Chapter 5.3: Galatians 3:10-18: The Law OR Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Chapter 5.4 Galatians 3:15-18: The Law Cannot Set Aside or Supplement Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Chapter 5.5: Galatians 3:19-25: Under the Law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Galatians 3:19-22: Function of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Galatians 3:23-25: The Law as a Tutor Up to Christ (vv. 23-25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Chapter 5.6: Galatians 3:26-29: All One in Christ Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
vii
Part 6: Zion and the Jerusalems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Chapter 6: Zion and the Jerusalems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Galatians 4:21-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Galatians 4:27-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Part 7: Is the Christian Heavenly and Is the Church Heavenly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Chapter 7.1: On the Heavenly Calling, and the Mystery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What is Meant by “The Heavenly Calling” ; and What is its Practical Bearing upon
the Walk and Worship of Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Our Walk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Our Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conducting the Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What is Meant by “The Mystery” and What Connection is There
Between it and “The heavenly Calling”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
245
245
246
247
248
248
251
Chapter 7.2: The Calling and Hope of the Christian -- Eph. 1:3-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Chapter 7.3: What is it to be Seated in the Heavenlies in Christ Jesus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
What is it to be Seated in the Heavenlies in Christ Jesus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
“Heavenly Places” -- Ephesians 2:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
The Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Chapter 7.4: Conflict in the Heavenlies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Canaan and the Armor of God -- Eph. 6:10-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Notes on Ephesians 6:10-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Chapter 7.5: The Heavenly and the Heavenly Ones -- 1 Corinthians 15:46
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Chapter 7.6: God’s Promises to Abraham, and His Grace to the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Chapter 7.7: A Heavenly Christ, Therefore a Heavenly Church
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Part 8: The Purpose of God and The Heavenly and the Earthly People of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Chapter 8.1: The Purpose of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Church and the Jews the Respective Centers of the Heavenly Glory
and of the Earthly Glory in Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Rest of God in the New Creation by Means of the Second Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Christ the Heir -- the Church Joint-heir with Him, Through Resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All Things Put Under His Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Christ as Heir Receives the Inheritance in the Way of Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Rejection by the Natural Seed gives Occasion for the Introduction
of the Spiritual Seed into the Heavenly Places as Joint-heirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Christ Exalted in the Heavens Prepares a Place for the Church, and can
Fulfil the Promises made to Israel -- Meanwhile the Church is Called . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
At his Coming, He Receives the Inheritance with the Risen Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
285
285
286
286
286
287
287
288
288
viii
The Saints Judge the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
The Kingdom of the Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Chapter 8.2: Divine Mercy in the Church and Towards Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
The Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Chapter 8.3: Lo-ami and the Government of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Chapter 8.4: Additional Thoughts on The People of God Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
1 Peter 2:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Romans 9:25, 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Olive Tree and the Heavenly/Earthly Distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Millennial Saints not in Heavenly Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lo-ami Was not Pronounced Upon Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Eternal State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
315
317
319
321
321
322
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Appendix 1: In 1827 J. N. Darby Understood the Pretribulation Rapture and
the Distinction between the Heavenly and the Earthly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Appendix 2: Pseudo-Ephraem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Appendix 3: Morgan Edwards: An Eighteenth Century Pretribulationist, Including a Survey
of Early Baptist Prophetical Views and a Brief Answer to
Dave MacPherson’s The Rapture Plot, contributed by F. Marotta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
ix
List Of Charts
Epochs of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside front cover
Isaac Watt’s Dispensational Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. C. Ryrie’s Comparative Chart of views of dispensations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Three Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Larry V. Crutchfield’s Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Israel is Called for the Earth and the Church is Seated in the Heavenlies in Christ Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
The Two Parentheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
The Interposed heavenly Calling
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
End of the Testing of the First Man at the Cross, The Suspension of the Introduction of the Age to Come,
And the Introduction of the Mystery and The Heavenly Calling, Meanwhile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Romans 5:12-21: The Christian Under a New Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Intercalated Age Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
End of the Testing of the First Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Acts: The History of the Spirit’s Work in Testimony to the Resurrection and Glorification of Christ . . . . . following 144
x
Preface to First Edition
This book contains numbers of chapters which have been
taken from the magazine articles, “Elements of
Dispensational Truth,” in Thy Precepts. Part 1 has been
added to these articles for two reasons:
1. How dispensational truth came to America is
documented, showing the dependency on J. N.
Darby’s teaching.
2. It is shown that:
a)
there are important distinctions between the
teaching of Scofieldian dispensationalism and
dispensational truth as taught by J. N.
Darby;
b) that the contrast involves the point that C. I.
Scofield’s system is better described as an
age-ism scheme -- with elements of truth
borrowed from J. N. Darby’s teaching,
while at the same time omitting very
important truths.
Several charts are included in the text in order to
graphically summarize and present these conclusions.
In addition to the charts in the text, a chart, Epochs of
Scripture, is found at the front cover, with a chart on the
book of Acts.
In view of the recent rise of “Progressive
Dispensationalism,” with its denial that there is both a
heavenly and an earthly people of God, and its denial that the
Church and the Christian is heavenly, Part 7, “Is the
Christian Heavenly and is the Church Heavenly” has also
been taken from Thy Precepts and included. Also Part 8 has
been added for the same reason. Besides that, “Progressive
Dispensationalism” has also been noticed at various points in
added comments to some of the articles.
“Progressive Dispensationalism” is a selfcongratulatory name. Presently, the political climate in the
U. S. A. is such that political “liberals,” seeking to avoid the
label of being “liberals,” are starting to call themselves
“progressives.”
In
reality,
this
self-styled
“Progressive
Dispensationalism” is neither progressive nor
dispensationalism. Why accord its adherents the selfflattering, delusive label? I propose calling it Covenant
Pretribulationism because it is a form of covenantism though
its advocates still affirm belief in the pretribulation rapture.
When they, and/or their students, jettison the pretriblulation
rapture, they will be covenant posttribulationists, sometimes
called covenant premillennialists.
A Subject Index and a Scripture Index have been
generated to make this book useful as a reference.
This is volume one of a response -- really, a restatement
of long-taught truth -- to antidispensational systems,
including covenant theology. In refuting these false views,
much of Covenant Pretribulationism will have also been
answered. This will be evident at various points in the book.
There are some books to which the reader is directed as
complementary to the book in the reader’s hands. They are
available from Present Truth Publishers
1. There is a three volume set called Precious Truths
Revived and recovered Through J. N. Darby. Volume
1 covers 1826-1845.
2. J. N. Darby’s Teachings regarding Dispensations, Ages,
Administrations, and the Two Parentheses, is and
exposition of his teachings regarding these matters.
3. Daniel’s 70 Weeks and the Revival of the Roman
Empire.
4. Future Events
NOTE: Braces { } indicate material that I have added to something that has been quoted.
Preface to Second Edition
The second edition is not a revision of the first edition. Rather, much additional material is incorporated; the material in
chapters 3.4 - 3.8 is new as well as the two charts in color that just precede chapter 3.4. The chart, The Three Administrations,
a representation of dispensational truth expounded by J. N. Darby, has been slightly modified. There is an indication that JND
held that the Jews still had calling after the beginning of the times of the Gentiles until the cross. This is noted by the addition
of a dashed line as well as a line drawn through the words NO CALLING, like that. At any rate, I believe that the heavenly
calling interposed the earthly calling of Israel.
Chapter 1.1: Dispensational Truth
1
Part 1
The Mystery
as to which
Silence was Kept
Chapter 1.1 briefly introduces us to some points regarding dispensational truth. Chapter 1.2 records the influence of J. N.
Darby on the North American Prophetic Conferences. In Chapter 1.3 we shall observe that the Old Testament prophets did
not speak about the mystery of Christ and the church. Then in Chapter 1.4 we will take note of the distinction between the
heavenly and the earthly spheres, particularly the heavenly, concerning the purpose of God to glorify Himself in Christ in both
these spheres. Thus, we will observe that there is an earthly people, and a heavenly people, and will notice our own place of
blessedness as united to Christ in the heavenly sphere.
2
Part 1: The Mystery as to which Silence was Kept
3
Chapter 1.1
Views on Dispensations
THE HARMONY OF THE WORD OF GOD
Perhaps you have not heretofore thought about what it is that
makes the Word of God one harmonious whole. It is not the
salvation of the elect; rather, it is the manifestation of the
glory of God in Christ. In 1836 J. N. Darby pointed that
out:
If some, attaching everything to the final salvation of the
elect, say, if this be not effected by it all the rest is immaterial and curious, and they do not know anything about
dispensations; I answer, that the salvation of the elect is
not the great end of any Christian’s thoughts, but the
divine glory; and that God has been pleased to glorify
Himself and display His character in these dispensations
for the instruction of the church; and that if the church
casts it aside, they are casting aside the instruction which
God has afforded of His ways. They are making
themselves wise without God, and wiser than He, for He
has thought fit for His glory to instruct us in these things. 1
It is a sad commentary on their state of mind to read
comments by opposers of dispensational truth to the effect
that they learned it in Sunday School but when they came to
maturity they cast it off. Others might have attended a
seminary or other school where (some) dispensational truth
was taught, but their teachers allegedly could not answer all
their questions; and leaving the school they embraced “the
reformed faith”! We wonder who the audience is, and what
its caliber, for whom such slurs against those who hold
dispensational truth are intended.
J. N. Darby, for example, believed dispensational truth,
not because he was an ignorant man, or ignorant of “the
reformed faith,” or of “covenant theology,” or because he
learned it in Sunday School. The erudite W. Kelly said
(letter dated Feb. 22, 1901):
The late Mr. Darby was a highly educated as he was an
extremely able man, of rare attainments in almost all
branches of knowledge, of preeminent logical power, of
moral and metaphysical analysts hard to match, to say
nothing of his linguistic skill ancient and modern. . . . But
what characterized our honored brother as a saint and
1. Collected Writings 1:116.
servant was a deeper insight into God’s mind in Scripture
than any other I ever knew or heard of in any age since the
apostles, approached: such was his spiritual power of
bringing in Christ to decide questions great or small.
At any rate, dispensational truth is opposed by covenant
theology, which teaches that there is an eternal covenant of
grace (or, of redemption) and all other covenants are the
unfolding or expression of it. The church is seen as under
the new covenant of Jer. 31. Thus Scripture is unified under
the idea of covenant. The system, in effect, therefore,
centers upon the salvation of the elect (thus putting man at
the center of God’s activities, instead of His glory in Christ).
This, it is thought, is what binds all of Scripture into a
harmonious whole.
The charge made against dispensational truth is that it
fragments the unfolding of redemption (because of the nature
of the distinction made between Israel and the Church) and
it makes the Bible a prophetic jigsaw puzzle. On the
contrary, instead of the objectors’ mythical “covenant of
grace” being the unifying truth, dispensational truth shows
that what unifies Scripture is the unfolding of the nature and
glory of God in Christ, manifested in two spheres, the
earthly and the heavenly. That is, the cross being the moral
foundation of all, where God’s nature was vindicated so that
blessing could reach man, God’s glory in Christ will be
manifested in government in the earthly sphere, with Israel
as its center; and God’s glory in Christ will be manifested in
blessing in the heavenly sphere with the Church as its center.
Eph.1:9, 10 tells us that the mystery of God’s will is that in
the dispensation of the fullness of times (i.e., the millennium)
Christ will head up both the heavenly and earthly spheres. 2
He will unite all things under one headship, for God’s glory.
2. It was not a secret that Christ would head up the earthly sphere, as Psa. 8
shows. But the heavenly sphere, with the Church’s distinct place, and Christ’s
universal headship, was not revealed in the OT Hence the headship, as
denoted in Eph. 1:9, 10, is a mystery, a secret not spoken of in the OT It is a
secret now disclosed to the saints who are blessed with every spiritual blessing
in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph. 1:3), yea, seated there, in Christ Jesus (Eph.
2:6). Thus, the heading up of all is called the “mystery of His will.”
4
His exaltation must include universal acknowledgment in the
place where He humbled Himself to the lowest. This is the
divine order (Matt. 23:12; Phil. 2:5-11).
The Assyrian of the OT prophets represents the
opposition to the blessing of God’s earthly people in ‘earthly
places,’ so to speak, and thus to the manifestation of God’s
glory in Christ manifested in government in the earth. The
putting down of this opposing policy, as embodied in the
Assyrian (and in Gog who shares it) with the resultant
establishment of Zion and Messiah’s reign before His
ancients in glory (Isa. 24:23), is the counsel that is purposed
concerning the whole earth (Isa. 14:26).
COVENANT THEOLOGY
The system of covenant theology incorporates a way of
understanding the Old Testament prophets which results in
those prophets speaking about the church. The process of
interpreting the OT prophets is usually called “spiritual”
interpretation. This they place in contrast to “literal”
interpretation -- which indicates a future for Israel under the
reign of Christ (the millennium), as the OT Prophets
prophesied would occur.
“Spiritual” interpretation
transmutes what the OT prophets have said about Israel’s
future glories into church blessings now, a process which I
might refer to as spiritual alchemy.
“Spiritual” interpretation, or “spiritualization,” is not
spiritual in the sense of 1 Cor. 2:13. Moreover, it may not
even be the best term to describe the process. But what
should the process be called? -- “figurative” interpretation?
That does not help, but might add to the confusion since
literal interpretation recognizes figures of speech and
symbols used by the OT prophets. 3
Let us consider the case of “Hymenaeus and Philetus;
[men] who as to the truth have gone astray, saying that the
resurrection has taken place already; and overthrow the faith
of some” (2 Tim. 2:17, 18). They evidently applied a nonliteral view to the resurrection. Perhaps they used truth we
find in Eph. 2 -- our being raised up together with Christ.
What would you call their view? They must have given a
figurative meaning to the resurrection, spiritualizing it. Of
course, they did this regarding a foundation, or fundamental,
truth. We do not say that spiritualizing the OT prophets
overthrows the faith, but it is very serious, affecting the
truths that rest upon the foundation. At any rate, it is
instructive that we have this example of a ‘spiritualizing’ of
a truth in the Word.
Those we shall examine, who spiritualize the prophets,
do not believe that the Christian is under the law for
justification, but do place the Christian under the (moral) law
as the rule of life. Since Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath, you
3. See chapter 1 in my Daniel’s 70 Weeks and the Revival of the Roman
Empire, available from the publisher, for a discussion of interpretation.
will understand why they transmute Sunday (the Lord’s day)
into being the Sabbath -- to be consistent with the keeping of
the ten commandments which require the keeping of the
Sabbath. Not only is this change of day an unacceptable
alchemy in divine matters, it is doubtful that they keep it as
Moses commanded. Such view the law as a transcript of the
mind of God and Christ’s righteous law-keeping as the
righteousness which Christians are made (2 Cor 5:21). Of
course Christ kept the law, but this system lowers His walk
to that. It lowers what God is. It lowers the Christian’s
position. Actually it Judaizes. The end of “the first man” (1
Cor. 15:47) is not rightly apprehended, seeing that the law
addressed man, in the persons of the favored people, in their
Adamic responsibility. It is not surprising then that such
regard the Christian as “a true Jew” 4 and as “the Israel of
God” (Gal. 6:16), which are, really, the believing Jewish
remnant of the present time (cf. Rom. 11:5). And so they
regard the church as the spiritual continuator of Israel,
transmuting the promises to Israel into spiritual blessings for
the church as the alleged “spiritual Israel,” (interestingly,
they leave the curses for the natural Israel). All of this
lowers the Christian to the level of a millennial saint (though
millennial saints will have a place higher than an OT saint).
The Church is
Not an Age
WHAT IS THE PRESENT AGE?
Most, if not all, except J. N. Darby and those who were
helped by him, place the church in a scheme of ages, making
a distinct church age among the ages of which Scripture
speaks. That is true of most, if not all, Dispensational Ageists also. But it quite incorrect, contradicting what Scripture
says about “this age,” and results in prohibiting one from
apprehending and embracing numbers of truths that are really
bound up together in dispensational truth.
The following references bear on the fact that there are
two ages that concern us here regarding the place of the
church with respect to the ages.
1. This age: Matt 12:32; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 4:4; Gal.
1:4; Eph 1:21; 1 Tim. 6:17; 2 Tim. 4:10.
2. The completion of the age: Matt. 13:39, 40, 49;
24:3; 28:20.
3. The age to come: Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke
18:30; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 6:5.
4. A true Jew is one who is a Jew racially but whose heart is circumcised
also (Rom. 2:28, 29). Both Jewish believers and Gentile believers answer to
the meaning of circumcision (Phil. 3:3), but that does not transmute a Gentile
believer into a “true Jew.”
In Matt. 12:32 the Lord spoke of two ages, i.e., this age and
the age to come. He was present in one of those two ages
as He spoke those words. Concerning “this age,” J. N.
Darby remarked that it was
a perfectly well-known phrase among the Jews who spoke of
olam-hazeh, this world or age, and the olam-havo, the age to
come, the latter being the time of Messiah’s reign. 5
“This age,” of which the Lord spoke, is the Mosaic age, and
it will be displaced by “the age to come,” i.e., the
millennium. “The times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) refers
to the period depicted by the image of Dan. 2. This period
was running its course during the time before our Lord was
here, and continues on until the Lord comes as the smiting
stone. The times of the Gentiles is not itself an age. It runs
on during the Mosaic age. The times of the Gentiles has
been called an earthly parenthesis of judgment on Israel,
while they are Lo-Ami (not my people; see Chapter 8.3 ).
It is the time during which government has passed from the
throne of David to Nebuchadnezzar and the Gentile powers.
Thus, government will be in the hands of the Gentiles until
the smiting stone (Christ) smites the image (Dan. 2) at the
appearing of Christ in glory. 6 “This age,” the Mosaic age,
has to do with the earth (as all ages do), not with heaven, and
runs on until the setting up of the millennial kingdom. The
introduction of the times of the Gentiles did not change the
age. Neither did the death of Christ change the age, nor did
the formation of the church change the age. The rapture will
not change the age either; but “the completion of the age”
will follow after the rapture. The completion of what age?
The church age? No, the church will be gone. It is the
completion of the Mosaic age. The Mosaic age has not yet
been completed. The church is not an age. God is now
gathering a heavenly people, but that does not change “this
age” any more than did His transferring governmental power
from the throne of David to the Gentiles.
1 Cor. 2:8 refers to “the princes of this age.” The
introduction of the times of the Gentiles did not terminate the
Mosaic age (“this age”) but the government connected with
the throne of David passed into the hands of “the princes of
this age.” 1 Cor. 2:8 is speaking of the Mosaic age, which
is presently running on.
With the rejection of Christ (the true God), Satan is
recognized as the god of this world (age) in 2 Cor. 4:4.
Satan is the called the god of “this age.” This is not ‘the age
of grace.’ Sadly, Demas loved the present age (2 Tim. 4:10;
cp. Titus 2:12 and J. N. Darby’s footnote thereto),
characterized, not surprisingly, as this present evil world
(age) in Gal. 1:4. Those “rich in the present age” are
enjoined not to be high-minded (1 Tim. 6:17).
5. Collected Writings 10:360; see also 24:12, 19, 45, 78; 25:244; 8:13, 14,
22; 13:155, 156.
6. These things are depicted on the chart on p. 49.
5
To say that man was under “the” law (while not
accurate in that the Gentiles were never under the Mosaic
law), but now he is under grace, is incorrect. The first man
was under testing by the law in the persons of the Jews. The
idea that there is now an age of grace and that man is being
tested with respect to grace is false. The testing of the first
man ended at the cross and that testing is not proceeding
now. Meanwhile “this age” (the Mosaic age) runs on, and
God is forming a heavenly company now. And when that
formation is finished (at the rapture), the era of “the
completion of the {Mosaic} age” will arrive, and that will be
followed by “the age to come,” the millennium.
When the testing of the first man was completed by
Christ’s crucifixion, the Second Man was established in
resurrection. Though in His own Person, when here, Christ
was “the Second Man” and the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:4547), He entered into the place, the sphere, of these titles, in
resurrection, and now functions as such in the glory above.
None of this changed the age:
. . . [in] which he wrought in the Christ [in] raising him
from [the] dead, and he set him down at his right hand in
the heavenlies, above every principality, and authority,
and power, and dominion, and every name named, not
only in this age, but also in that to come . . . (Eph. 1:20,
21).
He has taken this place during the course of “this age,” the
Mosaic age, the age of the law; i.e., the very same age that
He spoke of in Matt 12:32. The introduction of various
features and characteristics during the age of the law did not
change that age. J. N. Darby often pointed out that
important fact:
The age, or this age, very clearly relates, in the passages
which thus speak of it, to an earthly state of things
{being} closed, and another begun. Christianity may find
its epoch in the prolonging of the age {of the law}; but it
is not by it that it {the church} is begun, nor ended, as a
precise date of time . . . 7
He pointed this out in 1844 in his magisterial refutation of
the futurist posttribulationism of B. W. Newton. Carefully
take note of the fact that “the end of the age,” will occur
after the rapture. Then of what age is it “the end of the
age”? The church will be gone and so the alleged “church
age” will be over. But the posttribulationist, B. W. Newton,
wanted “the end of the age” to be part of the alleged
Christian age in order to have the church in a Christian age
that ran on up to the time when Christ will introduce the new
age, “the age to come,” the millennium, in connection with
His appearing in glory. That is, it was an effort to have the
great tribulation to be part of the alleged church age. Here,
then, is what you must decide if you hold the pretribulation
teaching: What age does “the end of the age” end? The
6
truth is that it is not the end of what persons (erroneously)
call “the church age.” If you invent a new mini-age for this
epoch, then you have to insert another dispensation into the
age-ism scheme. Or, you could rightly see that “the end of
the age” ends the Mosaic age, called “this age.” And then
you will see that the church is not an age and that something
is wrong with age-ism. You may gain increased light upon
the subject of the heavenly character of the church. You
might learn what it means that the testing of the first man
was completed at the cross and that man is not now under
testing, etc., etc. Nor is it sufficient to say that the church is
heavenly but that we are in the age of the church. It is not
even sufficient to rightly say, as J. B. Williams, that “A
dispensation is not a period of time” and then make a church
age in a scheme of ages anyway. 8 That would prevent right
understanding. All ‘dispensational’ schemes that make the
church part of the ages I shall call Dispensational Age-ism.
The principle, present system is Scofieldian Dispensational
Age-ism. Let me add that I intend no hostility by using such
a description -- necessary to distinguish this quite different
system from dispensational truth taught by J. N. Darby.
The church is above and outside ages. Thus, you will
find that there is no age (aion) of grace. J. N. Darby
remarked that:
Christianity is not properly an age at all. “This age”
belongs to this world, not to the church. 9
W. Kelly remarked:
Thus for us it is “this present evil age,” from which
Christ’s death has delivered us (Gal. 1:4); the new age
{the millennium} will be good, not evil, as surely as it is
a future time. 10
F. W. Grant stated:
The time of the display of God’s heavenly purpose is not
reckoned among the ages of the world. 11
The Bible Treasury contained a note pointing out that:
At present, all is in suspense as to the ages: we are
heavenly. 12
The last quotation is not well stated. The Mosaic age is
running on. At any rate, see the illustration of these things
in the chart on p. 49.
I am not aware that Walter Scott, to whom C. I.
Scofield paid tribute in his Scofield Reference Bible, 13 held
the above. His Bible Handbook (vol. 1) does not show this
understanding. Moreover, his book, The Course of Time: An
Outline of Bible History and Events, not only does not
indicate this but rather his outline in the introduction suggests
seven divisions before the eternal state, referring to them all
as ages, including “the age of grace to the world.” That God
is now showing grace to sinners is not in dispute, nor is that
the issue here. It is not the intention to make a man an
offender for a word, but as J. N. Darby sometimes said, I am
not discussing language, but things, and the thing being noted
here is what “this age” is. Finally, Walter Scott’s At Hand
or, Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, has a section
titled “The Ages; or, from Eternity to Eternity,” in which he
outlines 11 epochs or eras plus eternity as a 12th item (as if
aiming for 12 things). 14
We are in a sphere that is outside and above ages. We
are seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6) where
13. See my J. N. Darby’s Teaching Regarding Dispensations, Ages,
Administrations and the Two Parentheses, p. 97. Walter Scott supported C.
E. Stuart in his teaching that Christ, in the disembodied state, took His blood
to heaven and made propitiation there. W. Scott went further. Here is what
W. Kelly said regarding W. Scott in 1890:
But I affirm that the author has abandoned the truth of God on
propitiation in a way which the simplest believer in the most
unenlightened sect, if orthodox, would denounce as false and evil
. . . It is not merely (as in 1886) a fable supplanting the truth; it
is since then an open contradiction of a most essential element of
propitiation as revealed in all the scriptures of God, though
presumably the last error flowed from the first. For if
propitiation be only in heaven after death, there can be in it no
abandonment of God, no suffering of Christ. Both errors make
shipwreck of the faith; but the former is the parent of the latter,
and necessarily involves it (Bible Treasury 18:60, 61).
W. Kelly referred to these teachings as “heterodoxy.” Concerning C. E. S.’
teaching, he referred to it as leaven (Bible Treasury 16:207) and
“fundamental error” (ibid., p. 190). In “The Strange Doctrine” on
Propitiation, W. Kelly pointed out that several in fellowship with him were
put away when they were discovered to hold C. E. S.’ doctrine of
propitiation made in heaven. He wrote:
No person known to hold it has been, or would be, tolerated in
fellowship.
Walter Scott went with the Open Brethren in 1907 and died in 1933.
8. Biblical Dispensations, Collingswood: The Bible for Today, pp. 7, 8, 10,
etc. This writer has the following novelty: “The Dispensation of the Mosaic
Law” “Ended with the Cross” {it did not, of course} and “The Dispensation
of The First Advent,” which he invented, “Ended with the Ascension of
Christ,” p. 14. He adjusts so as to have seven, which need not detain us.
9. Collected Writings 8:14. See also Letters of J. N. Darby 1:131, 132.
10. Isaiah, in note on ch. 13.
11. Help and Food 4:320. See his Numerical Bible on Matt. 24: “certainly
not interposing a Christian or Gentile age between that present one {in which
the disciples asked their questions} and His coming to set up the Kingdom,
rather making it a protraction of the Jewish “age” itself.”
12. The Bible Treasury 9:272.
In offering three explanations for our Lord’s words in John 20:17, “Touch
me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” the Scofield Reference Bible
says:
Jesus speaks to Mary as the High Priest fulfilling the day of
atonement (Lev. 16). Having accomplished the sacrifice, He was
on His way to present the sacred blood in heaven, and that,
between meeting with Mary in the garden and the meeting of Mt.
28:9, He had so ascended and returned; a view in harmony with
the types.
There was only one entry of Christ, when resurrected, into heaven (Heb.
9:12; see W. Kelly on Hebrews, in loco). The view is not in harmony with
the fact that the veil was rent while Christ was on the cross. In Lev. 16 the
blood was carried into the holy of holies when the veil was not rent.
14. Pages 204-210, London: Pickering and Inglis, fourth ed., n.d.
our blessings are (Eph. 1:3), as well as our warfare (Eph.
6:12) and where our citizenship, or commonwealth, is (Phil.
3:20). We are in union with the Head in heaven, by the
power of the Holy Spirit sent down at Pentecost, constituting
us as Heavenly (1 Cor. 15:48). Meanwhile, the present age,
i.e., the Mosaic age, continues on until the inauguration of
“the age to come,” i.e., the Messianic age, the millennium.
The idea that the church is an age among the ages dies hard.
But it is a blessed death because it opens the way for greater
apprehension of the purpose, ways and glory of God. The
fact is that the Age-ism schemes reflect the age-ism that
comes from covenant theology, as we shall see below when
considering the covenantism of Isaac Watts. J. N. Darby did
not systematize a form of alleged dispensationalism that
preceded him. He broke completely free of covenantism.
The chart on p. 49 illustrates His teachings on dispensational
truth. It is not denied that there are distinguishable ages in
Scripture. Scripture uses the words age and ages. That is
not the issue.
The reader should bear in mind that the Scripture does
not state that the law died. It states, rather, that the
Christian has died with Christ -- and the law of Moses does
not apply to one who is dead (Rom. 6:7, 8). The Christian’s
position is on the other side of death (Eph. 2:5, 6; etc.).
Positionally, he is not part of “this age.” Positionally he is
seated in the heavenlies, in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6), and
meanwhile he is an ambassador for Christ, the One in Whom
he is there seated.
WHAT ABOUT HEB. 9:26 AND 1 COR. 10:11?
But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been
manifested for [the] putting away of sin by his sacrifice
(Heb. 9:26).
We saw that the millennial age is “the age to come.”
Therefore this text is not telling us that when the Lord died
there would be no more ages. Neither does it tell us that the
Mosaic age ended. Heb. 9:26 has a moral force concerning
the end of the testing of the first man, man positionally in the
first Adam.
Why does He say that when the end is not come yet? It is
because the breach is total at the cross between God and
the world; as to the full history of man’s probation the end
is come; it was the end before God when once man had
rejected God’s own Son. 15
The last Adam and second man displaced the first consequent
upon the conclusion of the trial of the first. The world is not
now under testing. That moral history is closed, ended.
That is a fundamental truth of “dispensational truth.” We
may now look at 1 Cor. 10:11:
Now all these things happened to them [as] types, and
15. Collected Writings of J. N. Darby 32:365. See also 10:275; 29:194;
33:340.
7
have been written for our admonition, upon whom the
ends of the ages are come.
This text tells us that there is a divine intention that the ages
be instructive to us. These are the ages that show what man
is; what the flesh is, while fallen man is under trial. The
trial proved man to be without strength (Romans) and dead
in trespasses and sins (Ephesians). J. N. Darby wrote:
The expression, “the ends of the ages,” which will be
found in 1 Corinthians 10:11, is rather strange; but to
preserve the sense of the Greek, we could not say, “the
last times,” any more than “the end of the ages,” still less
“the end of the world.” The end of the ages was not yet
come; but all the different dispensations by which God
put Himself in relation with man, so far as they were
connected with man’s responsibility, had come to one
point, and were brought to an end in the death of the
Lord Jesus. After that -- great as had been His longsuffering -- God established a new creation. We have
therefore used the literal translation, “the ends of the
ages.” 16
The cross marked the end of the trial of the first man and the
establishment of the Second Man, with the introduction of the
new creation. The new creation began the moment Christ
rose from the dead. He is “the beginning of the creation of
God” (Rev. 3:14), i.e., the new creation of which the N T.
speaks. It is too bad that Christians are taught that the trial
of man has continued since the cross. That is necessarily
bound up with a number of mistakes. I call the reader’s
attention to this as a very serious defect in understanding
what God is doing for His glory in Christ.
BUT DOES NOT HEB. 1:2 SPEAK OF A CHURCH AGE?
God having spoken in many parts and in many ways
formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these
days has spoken to us in [the person of the] Son . . .
“The end of these days” refers to the time of the ending of
“this age,” i.e., the end of the Mosaic age, the age of the
law. In a footnote to this expression in his translation, J. N.
Darby directs attention to the expression in Isa. 2:2:
And it shall come to pass at the end of days, [that] the
mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the
top of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the
hills; and all the nations shall flow unto it.
You can see that it would be an error to suppose that Heb.
1:2 indicates that the Mosaic age is not now continuing.
How so? Why, to say so contradicts Isa. 2:2 which shows
that Israel’s restoration is bound up with the end of days,
rightly understood by the Jews to mean the close of the
Mosaic age of the law -- which will be replaced by the
Messianic age, the Kingdom of Christ, i.e., the millennium.
Thus, the prophetic scriptures of the OT show that the age of
the law continues until “This age” is displaced by “the age
16. Collected Writings of J. N. Darby 13:199.
8
to come.” In a footnote to the expression in Isa. 2:2, J. N.
Darby’s translation says:
See Heb. 1:2. A Hebrew expression implying the end of
the period of the law, when Messiah was to be introduced.
It introduces the days of Messiah. It occurs Gen. 49:1;
Num 24:14; Deut. 4:30; 31:29; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 49:39;
Ezek. 38:16; Dan 2:28; 10:14; Hos. 3:5; Mic. 4:1.
God had sent many (Matt. 21:33-37; Mark 12:1-6; Luke
20:9-13) and finally Messiah did come. John the Baptist,
and He Himself, proclaimed the kingdom as at hand. It was
offered in the Person of the meek and lowly One. He was
not wanted on such a basis. The belly-minded would have a
king on their own fleshly terms (John 6). The offer of the
kingdom was, then, bound up with the acceptance of Himself
in such a way that it brought out the moral state of the
people. In the crowning act that exposed the total ruin of
“the first man,” He was crucified. The kingdom had been
presented to responsibility, which rejected it by rejecting
Him. It will be brought in by sovereign grace acting in the
Person of “the second man.” Meanwhile, none of this
changed the age. The kingdom was ‘postponed’ and “the end
of these days” (Heb. 1:2) simply runs on awaiting God’s
time for the fulfillment of Isa. 2:2, etc., in connection with
“the end of days,” God meanwhile forming a heavenly
company. When that is completed, “the end of the {Mosaic}
age” will occur and then God will displace it with “the age
to come,” and will set His King upon His holy hill of Zion.
If the reader will divest himself of the idea that the
church is the introduction of a new age among the ages, these
things become clearer.
A DISPENSATION IS NOT AN AGE
Neither J. N. Darby or W. Kelly regarded “Innocency” and
“Conscience” as dispensations, though when speaking
conventionally they call things dispensations which they do
not when being more exact. I am not aware if either ever
used the word dispensation for “Innocency.” As to when
dispensations began, J. N. Darby wrote, concerning Noah:
Here dispensations, properly speaking, begin. On the first,
Noah . . . 17
He wrote this in 1836. I call special attention to the date to
show how early he understood this. W. Kelly agreed (see his
discussion in loco):
It is a mistake to include the world before that event {the
flood} in the time of dispensations. There was no
dispensation, properly so called before it. 18
It appears strange to think of an age of innocency. Was it
not a matter of days, at most, before man fell? Is that even
17. “The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations,” Collected Writings
1:125 (1836).
18. Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Pentateuch, London: Broom,
p. 46 (1871).
an age? -- to say nothing of a dispensation. The above
quoted writers, of course, believed that man was under
testing. But an age being discernable between Adam and
Noah, in which man was left to himself, to his conscience,
if you will, does not constitute it a dispensation, properly
speaking, though often we may, conventionally speaking,
refer to the dispensation of conscience. But, after all, God
did not dispense innocency or dispense conscience.
What dispensation or age was there here {in Eden}? And
what followed after it.? There was no longer trial in
Paradise, because man was turned out. By what formal
test was he proved outside? By none whatever. Man, the
race, became simply outcasts morally -- nothing else -from that day till after the flood. Not but that God
wrought in His grace with individuals . . . But it is
evident that dispensation, in the true sense of the word,
there was none. 19
That indicates that they would have rejected the C. I.
Scofield definition of a dispensation, which begins, “A
dispensation is a period of time during which . . . .” A
dispensation is not a period of time. Of course, there are
time periods that Christians commonly call dispensations
which Scripture designates rather as ages (aion).20 It is not
purposed to make a man an offender for a word. And, we
often use the word conventionally for an age, as did J. N.
Darby in the next quotation, where “calling” might have
been better. But we do want carefully to seek understanding
because:
The life and spiritual energy of a saint depends on his
faith in what is proper to His own dispensation. 21
THE WORD DISPENSATION
Concerning the meaning of oikonomia, another remarked:
Let us now speak of the term “the dispensation or
economy” in which some find a difficulty. The word is
simple enough, and signifies, in the original, the
administration of a house; by extension, it designates the
entire order of anything arranged by God, as when we
say “animal economy,” “vegetable economy.” The two
words of which it is compounded are oikos house, and
nemo to distribute, feed, etc.; and thus, in a house, there
was an economos (steward) and an economy, the
administration of the house. Thus, when God has
established a certain order of things on the earth, one is
wont to call it, accurately enough as it seems to me, an
economy. In Eph. 1 the Spirit Himself uses it. It is
possible that there is a slight shade between the Scripture
and the conventional uses of this word; in general, the
use of the word in Scripture is more closely connected
with its original sense, and contains more the idea of an
active administration. The word dispensation is often
enough used in this sense, and has the same etymological
19. Ibid., p. 47.
20. See Collected Writings 13:154,155.
21. The Prospect 2:89 (1850).
signification; God dispenses His gifts. 22
9
conduct of its servants.
Edward Dennett wrote:
The word before us, @Æ6@<@:\" -- (Eph. 3:2), and
translated "dispensation" there -- is a compound word
uniting two, which mean respectively “house” and “law”;
so that to give its exact counterpart in English, it would
stand thus -- “house-law”; and its obvious and primary
meaning would be -- the law, rules, regulations or
administration, of a household. The word itself is quite
familiar to our English ears and tongues, in an Anglicised
form -- “economy.” This term (correctly used in such
phrases as “political economy”), in current usage is mainly
taken in the sense of carefulness in expenditure, or in the
dispensing of means or substance; a portion undoubtedly,
though far from being all, that pertains to proper household
rule.
In Scripture we have it translated "stewardship," in
Luke 16:2-4; the kindred word, @Æ6@<`:@H (literally, an
economist), being translated "steward" in Luke 12:42;
16:1, 3, 8; 1 Cor. 4:1, 2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10;
“governors” in Gal. 4:2, and “chamberlain” in Rom.
16:23 -- while in 1 Cor. 9:17, Eph. 1:10, and Col. 1:25
we have it, as in the chapter under review, “dispensation.”
As employed in these passages, and in the phrase
"dispensational truth," it looks at the world as a great
house-hold or stewardy, in which God is dispensing, or
administering, according to rule of His own establishing,
and in whose order He has from time to time introduced
certain changes, the understanding of which is
consequently needful, both to the intelligent interpretation
of His word and to intelligent action under Him.
If we suppose a couple of households in any city,
conducted on very different principles -- the one, the
household of a godly man, of regular and orderly habits,
who rules his house in the fear of God, ordering everything
as under His eye and for Him; the other, that of a godless,
dissipated man, in which everything is at sixes and sevens;
and then imagine a domestic {servant} to pass from the
latter into the former, and to proceed to regulate her
conduct in her new place by the order or disorder with
which she was familiar in the old, one can at once discern
what a source of confusion she would be in the family. In
order to her becoming a faithful and profitable servant in
the godly household, she must first acquaint herself with its
order or “economy,” and then conform herself to that.
Although there are certain general duties that may pertain
alike to all households, the points of detail, even in
well-ordered families, will of necessity vary with the
varying circumstances, position in life, occupation, &c., of
the inmates; so that, the “domestic economy” being
different -- as meal hours and the like -- a servant has
always to change or modify her action in each case as
required. Even a change in the circumstances of the same
household will necessitate sometimes a change in its rule,
and demand therefore a corresponding change in the
22. The Present Testimony 4:68 (1853). The reader might want to look under
Dispensation . . . in the index to the Collected Writings of J. N. Darby for
more on this.
Now surely it is just as simple and plain, that if
God has, from time to time, introduced changes into the
order of His dealing with the world, and dispensing its
affairs, the nature of these changes must be studied,
understood, and acted on by His servants, if they would
prove profitable servants, and co-operate intelligently in
His plans. To import into one dispensation the directions
or conduct prescribed for another must entail confusion
and disorder, whether in the interpretation of the
Scriptures relating to them, or in the regulation of action,
individual or corporate, under them. Hence the necessity
of what the apostle (2 Tim. 2:15) calls “rightly dividing
the word of truth,” the neglect of which has ever been and
ever must be the source of unutterable confusion; in short,
of most of the confusion we see around. 23
W. Kelly remarked:
As the verse {Eph. 1:10} contains several words and
clauses which are not generally understood, it may be
added in this note that the word “dispensation”
(@Æ6@<@:\") has no reference to a particular period or
age (which is in the New Testament expressed by
It means “stewardship,” or rather
("Æf<)).
“administration,” the particular form here meant being
the summing, or heading (<"6,N"8"\TF4H) up of all
things, heavenly and earthy, under Christ. This will be
in the age to come, when Christ shall be displayed as
Head over all things, and the glorified saints shall reign
with Him. It is neither this age, during which Satan is
still permitted to reign as the god of this world, the prince
of the power of the air; nor is it the eternal state, when
all government is over, and Christ will have given up the
kingdom, that God may be all in all. It is the intervening
millennium. This will be the fulness of the times,
previous periods having been the necessary preparation
for it. Meanwhile, redemption through Christ's blood
having been effected, the Holy Ghost seals the believer,
and is the earnest of the inheritance. 24
The Apostle Paul said:
. . . the dispensation of God which [is] given me toward
you to complete the Word of God, the mystery(Col.
1:25).
The word dispensation does not mean age here. It was a
responsibility dispensed to Paul. Using Col. 1:25 and Eph.
3:9 in an effort to make the church an age is quite incorrect.
The reader should consult the book, J. N. Darby’s Teaching
Regarding Dispensations, Ages, Administrations and the Two
Parentheses, pp. 9-14, for further discussion concerning
what a dispensation is. 25
23. The Christian Friend, pp. 67-69, 1876.
24. W. Kelly, Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Ephesians,
London: Morrish, p. 27, note, n.d.
25. Also see The Mystery (Ephesians 3); and, The Mystery and the
Covenants, available from the publisher. These two papers are by E. Dennett
and W. Kelly respectively.
(continued...)
10
IS THE CHURCH AN INTERCALATION?
There are Scofieldian Dispensational Age-ists who view “the
church age” as an “intercalation,” an intercalary age in the
Mosaic age, ending at the rapture -- thus having Daniel’s 70th
week as part of the Mosaic age. This attempts to rescue the
Scofield system from having Daniel’s 70th week as part of
“the present age.” But this necessarily entails the
reinstatement of the priesthood and sacrifices as sanctioned
by God! The “intercalation” notion will be fully examined in
Part 3, where also the subject of the end of the testing of the
first man, at the cross, will be considered in some detail.
Dispensational Schemes
EXAMINATION OF ISAAC WATTS’
ALLEGED DISPENSATIONALISM
It is alleged by Scofieldian Dispensational Age-ists that J. N.
Darby systematized dispensationalism and that some others
before him had dispensational schemes. Now, I hope to
show that this is based, not on a proper view of
dispensational truth but, on schemes of ages -- which are not
the same thing. The use of the words “ages” and
“dispensations,” is certainly insufficient. Scripture uses
those words. And commentators use those words. The issue
is the meaning and application of those words and all that is
consequently involved.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748) is,
allegedly, a “forerunner” of J. N. Darby. Since I found that
the ideas of Isaac Watts are easily accessible I examined his
“The Harmony of all the Religions Which God Ever
Prescribed: Containing a Brief Survey of the Several Public
DISPENSATIONS of God toward man, or His Appointment
of different forms of RELIGION in successive Ages,” in
Works of Isaac Watts, vol. 2, pp. 539-578. He held to
covenant theology and its ideas about the law. Adam, he
said, had the moral law (i.e., the 10 commandments) and
was under a covenant of works. That dispensation was
followed by five dispensations, each of which were an edition
of the covenant of grace, he claimed, and during each of
those five, the moral law was in effect:
The whole system of natural duties, or the whole moral
law, is taken into every edition of the covenant of grace
(p. 563).
25. (...continued)
The reader will be even more profited by reading the following books
if he keeps in mind the points we have been reviewing regarding ages and
dispensations:
#
F. G. Patterson, The Ways of God, first published in 1865.
#
F. W. Grant, The Lessons of the Ages, which appeared serially in Help
and Food, vol. 4, 1886.
#
J. A. Savage, The Scroll of Time, first published in 1893 (see comment
by W. Kelly in the Bible Treasury 19:369).
#
W. M. Sibthorpe, The Ways of God with Man, 1903.
The covenant of grace is the gospel, he says (p. 541). So, as
to dispensations since Adam’s fall, they are:
different editions or manifestations of this covenant of
grace to men in several ages of the world (p. 546).
More generally, dispensations are:
. . . the appointed moral rules of God’s dealing with
mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as
accountable to him for their behavior (p. 543).
Concerning the church he says, “In the household of
Abraham and his posterity, God set up a visible church for
himself” (p. 554), and a “national church” in the days of
Moses (p. 554).
Nothing is said of the millennial reign in this paper. To
him, the present is the kingdom of Christ, the last
dispensation, to be followed by “The Last Judgment” (p.
576).
These statements and the following chart give us the
character of his system. The reader is now in a better
position to decide whether or not he thinks that
J .N. Darby system-atized what Isaac Watts wrote, or if the
only similarity is merely in distinguishing ages. To put the
question: do age distinctions within Isaac Watt’s covenant
theology make him a forerunner of J. N. Darby’s
dispensationalism? -- or has focusing on age-distinctions
mislead Scofieldian dispensationalists? N. Giesler wrote:
But crucial for this study is Isaac Watts (1647-1748), who
was not only premillennial but also a forerunner of
dispensationalism. He outlined six dispensations plus a
millennium which correspond exactly to those of the
Scofield Bible 26
Perhaps elsewhere Isaac Watts spoke of a millennium, but
not in his outline paper on dispensations (ages). On p. 259,
he referred to Isaac Watts as “an early dispensationalist.” 27
Here we see a person wholly steeped in covenant theology
called “an early dispensationalist.” Isaac Watts was a
covenant age-ist. N. Giesler has in mind ages, and the idea
that a dispensation is an age, and looks at J. N. Darby as if
he is in the flow of such ideas, whereas he is not. If
Scofieldians see in Isaac Watts an affinity to the Scofield
system, so be it. It has no real affinity to J. N. Darby’s
teaching other than that both distinguished ages (while J. N.
Darby stated that a dispensation is not an age, that the
church is not an age, and the first dispensation began
with Noah). I suggest that that is as flimsy a scaffolding as
possible by which to erect the “forerunner” idea. But let us
look at the chart of Isaac Watts’ age-scheme.
26. The Best in Theology, 1:254, Carol Stream: Christianity Today, 1987.
27. Ibid., p. 259.
11
Isaac Watt’s Dispensational Scheme
DISPENSATION
COVENANT
COMMENTS
The dispensation of innocency, or the
religion of Adam at first
Covenant of works
“that original covenant of works, or law of
innocency”
The Adamical dispensation of the covenant
of grace, or the religion of Adam after the
fall
First edition of the covenant of grace
“Three early dispensations of grace, are
called the patriarchal dispensations”
The Noachical dispensation; or, the
religion of Noah
Second edition of the covenant of grace
”
The Abrahamical dispensation; or, the
religion of Abraham
Third edition of the covenant of grace
”
The Mosaical dispensation; or, the Jewish
religion
Fourth edition of the covenant of grace
The Christian dispensation
“This is the last edition of the covenant of
grace, and is eminently called the gospel”
(mixture with covenant of works)
The Sinai covenant is “not only an
emblem, but was really a covenant of
works”
“Last and best of all the dispensations”
“dispensation of Christ”
“the Kingdom of Christ, therefore, or the
Christian dispensation”
The Last Judgment
{Gray shading indicates editions of the covenant of grace.}
A few words about dispensational schemes may also be in
order here. As far as schemes of seven or eight, there was
a scheme of eight dispensations which appeared in The
Present Testimony, vol. 6 (1854):
THE DISPENSATIONS
Genesis informs us that Creation was completed in six
days, and that God rested on the seventh. This
corresponds with the dispensations: the millennium
forming the seventh period. The eighth day, in scripture,
always has reference to the resurrection, or new state: so
with the eighth or eternal period.
Observe this: we have
1. The Adamic dispensation. Man in innocency.
2. Man fallen. God’s grace in giving promise.
3. Noahic. Government after the judgment of the flood.
4. Abrahamic or Patriarchal. Separation from idolatry.
5. Mosaic. The Law.
6. The Gospel. Heaven opened to faith. Heb.10:19-25.
W. C. B.
In 1863 a scheme of ages by John Cummings was published
in the Prophetic Times 1:152-154 (1863):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
“Adamitic age”
“Antediluvian, patriarchal age”
“Noachian dispensation”
“Abrahamic dispensation”
“Mosaic economy”
“The sixth, in which we now live”
“The seventh age or dispensation comes, called the
millennial rest”
In 1864, W. C. Bayne of McGill University, presented a
scheme:28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
“The Eden dispensation”
“The Antediluvian”
“The Patriarchal”
“The Mosaic”
“The Messianic, which extends from the birth of Christ to
the ascension of Christ.”
7. The Millennial. Heaven opened to sight. John 1:51.
8. The Eternal. The New Heavens and New
Earth.
Rev.21:1-5.
28. In James Inglis’ periodical, Waymarks in the Wilderness, vol. 2.
12
6.
7.
8.
“The dispensation of the Holy Ghost, or, as we sometimes
call it, the Gospel dispensation”
“The Millennial”
“The eternal state”
James H. Brookes followed this scheme. 29 In 1897, C. I.
Scofield wrote of J. H. Brookes, in memoriam of him, “. .
. was my first and best teacher in the oracles of God.” 30
4.
5.
6.
7.
He held a partial rapture.
In 1901, I. M. Haldeman published his Friday Night
Papers 34 in which the following age-ism scheme appeared:
In 1883, J. R. Graves said that there were seven “ages
or dispensations,” “which is the sacred division of time” (p.
165).31 These are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Adamic
Antediluvian
Patriarchal
Legal or Jewish
Gospel
Messianic/Millennium
Consummation/Eternal Sabbath
“The Tribulation Period,” occasioned by the pouring out
of the vials of the last plagues . . . Just preceding this
event, Christ will come into the air (p. 391) . . . for his
saints -- They are suddenly Caught up, Glorified and
Receive their Rewards -- They remain in Paradise until the
Tribulation Period has Passed (p. 406).
In 1895, George C. Needham published his Plan of the
Ages.32
In 1898, G. Campbell Morgan published a book 33 with
a “Chart of Events, Past, Present, and Future,” showing
these ages:
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
He speaks of:
“Creation Order
“The Fall to the Flood”
Flood to Abraham
Abraham to Moses
Moses to Christ
“The Present Age”
“Return of Christ to reign with his people”
Edenic
Antediluvian
Patriarchal
Mosaic
Messianic (“begins at John 1:28, 29, with the Baptism of
Jesus, and ends at John 19:31, with the Cross”).
Holy Ghost Dispensation
Times of Restitution (millennium)
Eternal State
This appeared again in a 1904 book 35 and in 1915 he
published A Dispensational Key to the Holy Scriptures, 36
which was extracted from his book, How to Study the
Scriptures
SCOFIELDIAN DISPENSATIONAL AGE-ISM
C. I. Scofield’s dispensational age-ism scheme is the best
known through the many, many copies of the Scofield
Reference Bible (SRB) that have been sold. We are thankful
for every bit of divine truth that saints of God embrace, and
many have been helped by the SRB – by being kept from
covenant theology -- and brought to wait for the any-moment
coming of our Savior. On the other hand, there is much
important truth that not only is not brought out in the SRB,
but aspects of it tend to hinder apprehension of these truths.
What is a Dispensation? On p. 5 of the SRB we read:
A dispensation is a period of time during which man is
tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation
of the will of God.
29. Maranatha or the Lord Cometh, St. Louis: Bedell, p. 285, fifth ed.,
1878.
30. The Truth: or Testimony for Christ 22:312 (1896-1897).
31. The Work of Christ Consummated in Seven Dispensations, Texarkana:
Bogard Press, 1971 [1883].
32. . New York: Revell. He tells us that having profited by “Believers’
Meetings” in Ireland, he came to the USA in 1868 and met James Inglis and
Charles Campbell, among others. I single out these two because they were
spreading the books of “brethren” writers (and, undiscriminatingly, at least
for a time, works by B. W. Newton and S. P. Tregelles. (See James Inglis’
Waymarks in the Wilderness, for example.) He introduced the idea of
“Believers’ Meetings” and a small one was held in 1868. In Philadelphia, in
1869, J. H. Brookes attended. The next one, in 1870, was even better
attended. The 1871 meeting was held in Canada; and then James Inglis and
Charles Campbell died which resulted in an interruption of these meetings.
He wrote:
Once again it took shape in 1875 under the leadership of D. W.
Whittle, the late P. P. Bliss, and James H. Brookes. The stream has
never since dried. On the contrary it has widened, deepened, and
branched out into the Niagara Convention and many others.
The Spiritual Life, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, pp.
18-20 (1895).
33. God’s Methods With Man: In Time: Past Present and Future, New York:
Revell, 1898.
Next, the seven dispensations (ages) of his system are listed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Innocency (Gen. 1:28)
Conscience (Gen. 3:23)
Human Government (Gen. 8:20)
Promise (Gen. 12:1)
Law (Ex. 19:8)
Grace (John 1:17)
Kingdom (Eph 1:10)
This definition of a dispensation really means that a
dispensation is an age. 37 The rest of the definition does not
34.
35.
36.
37.
New York: Audel (1901).
How to Study the Bible, New York: Cook, 1904.
New York: Cook, 1915.
C. C. Ryrie recently wrote:
. . . a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and
not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist
during a period of time). . . .
(continued...)
negate that because the rest of the definition is the statement
of a criterion by which to tell what the ages are. In 1918,
James M. Gray, who then followed this scheme exactly,
including citing the SRB definition, wrote:
They give (1) the character of the age -- wars,
international conflicts, famines, pestilences,
persecutions, and false Christs (cf. Dan. 9:26).
This is not the description of a converted world.
(2) But the same answer applies in a specific
way to the end of the age, viz. Daniel’s
seventieth week (Dan 9:24-27, note 2. All that
has characterized the age gathers into awful
intensity at the end.
. . . “age” is commonly used as synonymous with
“dispensation” (Eph. 1:10) . . . . 38
Of course, Eph. 1:10 does not prove it.
The Church Age. Now we must look at C. I. Scofield’s note
1. The explanation marked (1) is incorrect. The
events of Matt. 24:4-14 are called, by the Lord,
“the beginning of throes,” and this is the first
half of Daniel’s 70th week.
on John 1:17 concerning the dispensation of grace:
As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and
resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24, 25). The
point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the
condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of
Christ, with good works as the fruit of salvation (John
1:12, 13; 3:36; Matt 21:37; 22:42; John 15:22, 25; Heb.
1:2; 1 John 5:10-12). The immediate result of this testing
was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His
crucifixion by Jew and Gentile (Acts 4:27). The predicted
end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the
professing church . . And the resultant apocalyptic
judgments (SRB, p. 1115).
2. He does not define what he means by “the age”
but it seem clear to me that he does not regard
what Scripture calls “this age” as the Mosaic
age. No, he has inserted an age.
#
It is clear that his system violates the fact that the testing
of “the first man” ended with the cross.
#
That necessarily clouds apprehension
establishment of “the second man.”
of
13
3. It almost appears that he regards “the end of the
age” as the end of that age that he has placed
between the Mosaic age and the millennium.
On the other hand, in the note on Dan. 9:24 he
speaks of “this entire Church-age” intervening
between the 69th week and the 70th week (p.
915).
the
#
In effect, it means that God was not finished with “the
first Adam” and that he has not been completely
displaced by “the last Adam.” 39
#
The scheme makes another age between the Mosaic age
and the age to come. The only entry in the subject index
under “Age” refers to Matt. 24:3 and in the note on p.
1033 we read:
#
He begins the dispensation of grace after the cross, yet
has made the rejection of Christ “the immediate result of
this testing.”
What causes confusion is not
acknowledging that the testing of “the first man” ended
with the cross and consequently man is not under testing
now.
#
“Legal obedience as the condition of salvation” is quite
wrong. (The NSRB, see below, has removed this.) If a
man kept the law he would continue to live his natural
life. And, I add, that is not what eternal life means.
#
And, finally, his definition of a dispensation is wrong.
What we have here is Scofieldian Dispensational Ageism.
Verses 4 to 14 have a double interpretation:
37. (...continued)
A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of
God’s purpose. If one were describing a dispensation, he would
include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation,
responsibility, testing, failure and judgment.
(Dispensationalism, Chicago: Moody Press, p. 28, 1995.)
Note particularly the word testing. The testing of man ended at the cross.
At bottom, this is still an age-ism scheme.
Recently, concerning Matt. 28:20, 13:40, 12:32 and Heb. 6:5, Roy L.
Aldrich wrote:
In these passages the word “age” is used to designate this Gospel
economy or a new age (“A New Look at Dispensationalism,” in
R. B. Zuck, ed., Vital Prophetic Issues, p. 159 (1995).
In this book, chapter 6, by Jeffrey L. Townsend, is entitled, “Is the Present
Age the Millennium?”
38. A Text-Book on Prophecy, New York: Revell, p. 137 (1918). He was
at this time Dean of the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.
39. The reader will find help on these matters in my J. N. Darby’s Teaching
Regarding Dispensations, Ages, Administrations and the Two Parentheses,
Chapter 6: “The End of the Trial of the First Man at the Cross, and the
Consequences for the Christian.”
Borrowed Concepts. Borrowing from J. N. Darby, there
was added to the age-ism scheme:
#
the distinction between the church as a heavenly people
and Israel as an earthly people
#
#
#
the pretribulation rapture
the postponement of the kingdom
the distinction between the kingdom of God and the
kingdom of heaven 40
40. Craig A. Blaising erroneously credited C. I. Scofield with this
distinction:
Scofield proposed what became the most common classical
dispensational doctrine of the kingdom by distinguishing between
the kingdom of God which concerned God’s moral and spiritual
(continued...)
14
#
the removal of covenantism
Without these things there would be no Scofieldian
Dispensational Age-ism. Charles C. Ryrie has rightly
concluded:
If Scofield parroted anybody’s scheme it was Watts’s, not
Darby’s. 41
Except for the exclusion of the Millennium (he did not
consider it a dispensation), this outline is exactly like that
in the Scofield Reference Bible, and it is Watts’s outline,
not Darby’s! 42
Perhaps it was Isaac Watt’s covenant age-ism scheme that
formed the basis for C. I. Scofield’s scheme, an age-ism
scheme -- with teachings borrowed from J. N. Darby,
clearing out the covenantism. What would you have without
at least those teachings from J. N. Darby?
The Synopsis and the Numerical Bible on
C. I. Scofield’s Desk.
John Reid wrote:
Mr. P. Daniel Loizeaux related the following incident
concerning Miss Emily Farmer, a well educated and
deeply spiritual sister from England, who was in the
employ of Loizeaux brothers and engaged in proofreading
and correcting manuscripts at the depot. When Dr. C. I.
Scofield started work on his reference Bible, he came to
Loizeaux Brothers and asked, if possible, for a competent
and spiritual helper, one who had intelligence in the
Scriptures. Miss Farmer was assigned and worked with
him throughout the first edition. She told us the two sets
of reference books on Dr. Scofield’s desk to which he
referred constantly, were the Synopsis of the Books of the
Bible by J. N. Darby and the Numerical Bible by F. W.
Grant. This surely speaks volumes. 43
And now the “Progressive Dispensationalists” (really
Covenant Pretribulationists, at the moment) have retrogressed
back into covenantism, necessarily jettisoning some of those
teachings taken from J. N. Darby; teachings which were
needed to form the SRB system clear of covenantism, while
retaining a Watts-like, age-ism scheme.
40. (...continued)
rule, and the kingdom of heaven, which was the political
fulfillment of the Old Testament Davidic Kingdom . . .
(“Contemporary Dispensationalism,” Southwestern Journal
of Theology 36:7, Spring 1944).
The distinction as stated here is not altogether accurate if one thinks of J. N.
Darby’s view of it.
41. Dispensationalism, Chicago: Moody Press, p. 69, sec. ed., 1995.
42. Ibid., p. 67.
43. F. W. Grant: His Life, Ministry and Legacy, Plainfield: John Reid Book
Fund, pp. 27, 28 (1995).
Chapter 1.2: Did J. N. Darby’s Teaching Influence the North American Prophetic Conferences?
15
Chapter 1.2
Did J. N. Darby’s Teachings
Influence The North American
Prophetic Conferences
and the Scofield Reference Bible?
The Influence of Persons
Influenced by “Brethren” Writers
There are several references that the reader interested in the
history of the prophetic conferences held during the latter
part of the 1800s and early 1900s can consult for details. 44
My purpose is not the recounting of this history, though it is
necessary to refer to some of it, but to show how the truth of
the pretribulation rapture came to North America and the
instrumentalities by which this truth was spread, affecting the
leaders in these conferences (and the consequent impact on
the Scofield Reference Bible). It does not require much
insight to realize that it was through J. N. Darby -- whether
through his books, or the books of “brethren” who fully
accepted the teachings associated with his name, or through
his seven visits to North America. I am not aware that this
has been done before. The acceptance of the truths of the
pretribulation rapture and of the distinction between Israel
(earthly) and the church (heavenly), by those who remained
in their denominations, or sought a transdenominational
ministry 45 was not, of course, accompanied by the
acceptance of numerous other truths taught by J. N. Darby
regarding the church and ministry, separation from evil, etc.,
and in particular I call attention to dispensational truth. The
44. David O. Beale, In Search of Purity, Greenville: Unusual Publications,
1986 (J. N. Darby’s name does not appear in the copious index); E. R.
Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, British and American Millenarianism
1800-1930, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970; Larry D. Pettegrew, The
Historical and Theological Contributions of the Niagara Bible Conference to
American Fundamentalism, 1976, dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary
-- part of which was adapted to, and appeared serially in the Central Bible
Quarterly, Winter 1976 through Winter 1977. Also see George W. Dollar,
A History of Fundamentalism in America, Greenville: Bob Jones University
Press, 1973.
45. . Arno C. Gaebelein is an example.
difference will be shown subsequently. All truth has a
practical bearing. We practice what we really believe.
Doctrine forms behavior. Defect in practice may be a
failure with respect to truth held; but more often it is the
expression of defective doctrines held.
MINIMIZATION OF INFLUENCE
While I am thankful that Charles C. Ryrie is holding the line
about Progressive Dispensationalism, I am dismayed at his
minimization of the effect of J. N. Darby’s teachings on
North American dispensationalism. For example, in
commenting on the famous premillennial prophetic
conference held in New York in 1878, concerning which
more will be found below, he wrote:
An “any moment” coming was linked to premillennialism.
But there is little evidence that these men were borrowing
from Darby, and the Plymouth Brethren were not
prominent in the leadership of these conferences. The
leaders were denominational men. 46
Did “Plymouth Brethren” have to be there for these
“denominational men” to have been influenced by J. N.
Darby’s “any moment” teaching? Is he implying that they
saw this by themselves??? He also wrote:
Likewise, there was little, if any, connection between
dispensationalism, and the earliest prophetic conferences
in America (the first being in 1876). They were not
called to promote dispensationalism47 but to oppose postmillennialism, annihilationism, and perfectionism, and to
promote premillennialism, the unity of the body of Christ,
and Bible study. 48 The Bible studies were based on what
some speakers themselves described as a grammatical-
46. Ibid., p. 74.
47. {Why they were called does not prove the lack of influence.}
48. {J. N. Darby had been doing this. See his Collected Writings.}
16
historical method of interpretation. 49 If dispensational
ideas were presented, they were incidental to the main
purpose of the gatherings.
Nevertheless, these conferences inevitably did
promote dispensationalism because of the insistence on the
absolute authority of the Scriptures, the literal fulfillment
of Old Testament prophecy, and the expectation of the
imminent coming of Christ.50 However, in the 1886
Chicago prophetic conference a speech was given that
included a dispensational scheme, emphasis on the
literalness of the characteristics of the millennial kingdom,
the withdrawal by Jesus of the kingdom in the later part of
His earthly ministry, 51 and the pretribulation rapture of
the church . . .
In due time dispensationalism and a certain system of
eschatology were wedded. But it was a system of
Eschatology, not merely an outline of future events. 52
Indeed, it would be more accurate to call it a system of
interpretation, for dispensational premillennialism not only
includes a description of the future but also involves the
meaning and significance of the entire Bible. 53
JAMES INGLIS (1813-1872) AND
CHARLES CAMPBELL (DIED 1873?)
James Inglis edited the periodical Waymarks in the
Wilderness, 1864-1872, the year of his death. His friend
Charles Campbell edited The Scripture Testimony, 1863, and
speaks of having received books and tracts from England
which:
with unusual Scripturalness, power and unction set forth
the gospel of the grace of God, the coming and glory of
His Kingdom, and the calling and hope of the Church of
Christ. (p. 377).
He goes on to speak of distributing these and enlarging that
distribution:
With this small beginning the Lord was pleased to grant
his blessing. Soon both the demand and supply was
increased (p. 378).
Indeed, the magazine carried some articles by C. H.
Mackintosh. There were also a few by his friend James
Inglis and one can see progress being made. When we come
to the 1864 issuance of Waymarks in the Wilderness, the first
article is “The Expectation of the Church,” by James Inglis,
in which we read:
Before the visions of judgment in the apocalypse, he assures the
Church , “I will keep you from the hour of temptation that is
coming upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the
earth.” Accordingly, in the visions of judgment, the Church is
49. {J. N. Darby believed in “literal” interpretation before some of them
were born.}
50. {J. N. Darby, and others, insisted on these things long before.}
51. {In other words, the “postponement” of the kingdom, taught by others
long before.}
52. {If this sentence is supposed to mean that teachers like J. N. Darby and
W. Kelly only had an “outline of future events,” that would be stunning.}
53. Ibid., p. 146.
seen, not on the earth, but under the symbol of twenty-four
Elders seated around the throne, until under another symbol,
she is seen as the armies of heaven following Him who goes
forth on the white horse to complete his victory (p. 16).
We look for our gathering together unto him, when those
who sleep in Jesus shall arise, and we who are alive and
remain shall be caught up together with them in clouds to
meet the Lord in the air; and there is not a single
predicted event standing between us and the fulfillment of
that hope (p. 16). 54
In 1864 James Inglis began W. C. Bayne’s paper, “The
Dispensations, Prophetically and Doctrinally Considered.”
In various issues over the years he referred to and
recommended the books of “brethren.” In 1871 an article
by James H. Brookes, of whom we have more to say below,
appeared. Below, we shall note that J. H. Brookes says that
he discovered premillennialism from the reading of the
Word, but is silent concerning how he understood the
pretribulation rapture. It may well be that James Inglis
convinced him. At any rate, in the article James Inglis
wrote, he said:
That surely is a hazardous theory which projects anything,
even to the thickness of the thinnest tissue-paper, between
the soul and the Savior; and precisely the same objection
which can be brought with tremendous force against postmillennialists who separate the waiting bridegroom a
thousand years from the expecting bride, may be urged
against pre-millennialists who separate Him by the
intervening events which they fancy must necessarily
occur previous to His advent (p. 230).
Also, we shall see below that it was James Inglis who taught
D. L. Moody the truth of the pretribulation rapture. Is it too
much to say that through Charles Campbell and James Inglis
truths that were being taught by “brethren,” 55 which really
were brought out through J. N. Darby, were being
disseminated in the U.S.A.? James Inglis also edited another
magazine from 1864-1872, namely, The Witness. In this
magazine “brethren” writers were quoted and their books
advertised for sale. Of special interest is that the May 1867
issue included an advertisement for the five volumes of the
Synopsis by J. N. Darby. In Waymarks, 1872, p. 187, the
following disclaimer appeared, which also shows from
where the pretribulation rapture was learned:
Only in justice to our contributors on the one hand and to
54. Waymarks for 1872 carried some addresses by James Inglis delivered
between 1852 and 1859, none of which indicated that he held the doctrine of
the pretribulation rapture. I would think Charles Campbell, a joint editor,
would have included one, if it existed. At any rate, the 1852 address showed
that he was a premillennialist.
55. In 1866 there was a 25-page article favorably reviewing J. N. Darby’s
The Irrationalism of Infidelity, Significantly, J. Inglis wrote:
Mr. Darby’s relations to a body of believer’s known as the
“Plymouth Brethren,” are well known to many of our readers”
(p. 1).
the Plymouth Brethren on the other, it is proper to say that
no one connected with that sect ever wrote a line for its
pages. {with the possible exception of W. C. Bayne.} Our
contributors are chiefly “pastors of our Reformed
churches,” most of them well known, though they do not
claim consideration on ecclesiastical grounds. So far from
being “the doctrinal representatives of the Plymouth
Brethren,” while we gratefully own our indebtedness to
them under God for the testimony they have borne to our
standing in Christ and the hope of our calling {the
pretribulation rapture}, we have been constrained to testify
against nearly everything in their theology which
distinguishes them from the other men of God named in
the review which occasions this statement.
Here is E. R. Sandeen’s assessment:
Although not willing to admit their affiliation {?} with his
denominational views, Americans raided Darby’s
treasuries and carried off his teachings as their own.56
Before passing on I would note that many things appeared in
Waymarks that I consider inconsistent with dispensational
truth and church truth. Now we need to introduce George C.
Needham.
GEORGE C. NEEDHAM’S (1840-1902) ROLE
George C. Needham wrote that he introduced the idea of
conferences to the U.S.A. He said that having profited by
“Believers’ Meetings” in Ireland, he came to the USA in
1868 and met James Inglis and Charles Campbell, among
others. I single out these two because they were spreading
the books of “brethren” writers (and, undiscriminatingly, at
least for a time), works by the posttribulationists, B. W.
Newton and S. P. Tregelles.57 He introduced the idea of
“Believers’ Meetings” and a small one was held in 1868. In
Philadelphia, in 1869, James H. Brookes attended.58 The
next one, in 1870, was even better attended. The 1871
meeting was held in Canada; and then James Inglis and
Charles Campbell died which resulted in an interruption of
these meetings. He came to see James Inglis die. 59
Concerning the recommencement of the meetings, G. C.
Needham wrote:
Once again it took shape in 1875 under the leadership of
D. W. Whittle, the late P. P. Bliss, and James H. Brookes.
56. The Roots of Fundamentalism, p. 102.
57. See James Inglis’ Waymarks in the Wilderness, 1864-1872 and Charles
Campbell, The Scripture Testimony, Philadelphia: Repository of Scripture
Testimony, 1863.
58. In 1897, W. J. Erdman (an associate editor of the SRB) wrote in
memorium of J. H. Brookes:
About 27 years ago {1897-27 = about 1870, note} I first met Dr.
Brookes in a Christian Conference held in his church in St. Louis.
Of those in attendance as speakers, three names have ever since
been associated, in my mind, as inseparable from a peculiar
testimony and defense of the faith in its primitive and apostolic
form; James Inglis . . Charles Campbell . . . and James H.
Brookes . . . (The Truth, 22:397).
59. . Waymarks in the Wilderness 10:211 (1872).
17
The stream has never since dried. On the contrary it has
widened, deepened, and branched out into the Niagara
Convention and many others. 60
In the “Introduction” to James Brookes’ Present Truth
(1877, p. 12) he spoke of how he and some others, saved in
Ireland in 1861, came together for Bible study, and:
we investigated the word alone, being neither helped or
hindered by traditional theology. The glorious coming of
our Lord, as an event hastening near, became to our souls an
inspiring, energizing hope (p.13).
But he did not say that they had then discovered the
pretribulation rapture or the any-moment coming. However,
on p. 15 he spoke of his “. . . living hope that at any
moment our Lord may come . . . ”
BIBLE STUDY IN 1875-1880
A. C. Gaebelein noted this:
During the summer of 1875, a few brethren met by
agreement in a cottage, not far from Chicago, to spend a
week in Bible study. There were only six, among them Dr.
Nathaniel West, Dr. James H. Brookes, Dr. W. J. Eerdman,
and Dr. H. M. Parsons. The blessing they received during
that week was so great they decided to meet again the next
summer.
The same brethren, with several others, among them
Dr. A. J. Gordon, of Clarendon Street Baptist Church,
Boston, gathered in fellowship at Swampscott, Mass. They
had difficulty in obtaining a suitable meeting place, but
finally they secured the chapel of the Congregational church.
This was during August, 1876. It became known that there
were Bible study meetings going on in the chapel, and on the
next day the chapel was crowded. Once more there was
much blessing, and the brethren were greatly encouraged.
The emphasis in these services was put on the return of our
Lord, "looking for that blessed hope." As this great truth
was but little known and preached, it attracted much
attention.
The meetings during the summer of 1877 were held in
Watkins Glen, N. Y., with far greater attendance. Then
followed the meetings during the month of June in 1878,
1879, and 1880. They were held in Clifton Springs, N. Y.,
where a well-known sanitarium was located, under the
leadership of Henry Foster, M. D., a Bible student. A
commodious tent was pitched on the grounds. New teachers
were heard, among them Evangelist George Needham. Year
after year there was an increased attendance and
corresponding blessing.61
HELPS BY THE WAY & HELP AND FOOD
Volume 1 of the monthly “brethren” magazine, Helps by the
Way, began in 1873 and was published in Toronto. It
became Helps by the Way, New Series in 1879 and was
followed by two volumes. In 1883, a new publisher in New
60. The Spiritual Life, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society,
pp. 18-20 (1895).
61. The History of the Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 31, 32.
18
York, Loizeaux Brothers, began to publish Help and Food,
under the editorship of F. W. Grant. This publication was
issued well into the 20th century. This came about because:
In the year 1870 at a Bible conference in Guelph, Ontario,
Paul Loizeaux first came in touch with the group known as
Brethren. There he met Mr. J. N. Darby. The influence of
this man, and many evangelists who had gathered from
different parts of Canada, greatly affected his future life. 62
A “Bible Truth Depot” had been started in 1876 in Iowa and
was transferred to New York city in 1879, from which
various publications went forth.
THE 1878 PROPHETIC CONFERENCE 63
Returning now to the first prophetic conference, Oct. 30Nov. 1,1878 (at the Holy Trinity Church -- Protestant
Episcopal), the periodical, the New Englander, took umbrage
about its premillennialism (that was the main thrust -- against
postmillennialism), and particularly about the “any moment
coming.” The third resolution 64 passed by the conference,
and found in the “Introduction” to the book, said:
III. This second coming of the Lord Jesus is everywhere in
the Scriptures represented as imminent, and may occur at any
moment; yet the precise day and hour thereof is unknown to
man, and is only known to God (p.8).
Referring to this resolution, G. N. H. Peters wrote:
aught we know before the sun sets,” it “may not be for
centuries.”
Rev. Rufus W. Clark . . . also affirms that Christ may come
at any moment. 66
The conference papers were published by Fleming H.
Revell, Chicago, and the book advertised some books by
“brethren” writers. 67
Returning now to James H. Brookes, recall that he had
been at early meetings begun by George C. Needham -- with
James Inglis and Charles Campbell. After the interlude in
these meetings they commenced again in 1875, the year he
began to publish a periodical, The Truth: or Testimony for
Christ. As did James Inglis and Charles Campbell, so did J.
H. Brookes recommend the “brethren’s” writings. 68
One of his articles, “How I Became a Pre-millennialist,”
was also printed in E. W. Bullinger’s periodical, Things to
Come (3:68). Interestingly, he describes in some detail how
he arrived at premillennialism but quietly passes over how he
became a pretribulationist! 69
THE 1884 CLIFTON SPRINGS PROPHETIC CONFERENCE
Robert Cameron 70 claimed that he was:
appointed one of the committee of nine to take charge of
subjects, speakers and other matters. At the 1884
Conference it became the “fashion” of every speaker to
This was passed at the time without anyone protesting, and
was thus publicly announced as the belief of the
Conference.65
The New Englander article said this about resolution III.:
The distinctive significance of this resolution is in the word
“imminent.” As exemplifying the sense in which it is
understood by the Conference, we quote from Dr. Brookes:
And now it seems to me that owing to the entire
construction of the scheme of redemption as set
forth in the Gospel, there is nothing to intervene
between this passing moment and our gathering
together unto Him. How often the thought has
come to me as I have listened with delight to the
instructions of these beloved brethren; it may be
that before this Conference is over we shall hear
the shout -- the kingly, conquering shout -- of
our descending Lord, and in a moment what a
strange stir! What rapture! What a hope! . . .
Dr. Craven says of the second coming that it “may be for
62. A Century of Christian Publishing, Loizeaux Brothers 1876-1976,
Neptune: Loizeaux Brothers, p. 7 (1976).
63. For readers interested in a sympathetic and detailed treatment of these
conferences and the development of American fundamentalism, see the
articles by Larry L. Pettegrew in the Central Bible Quarterly, for the winter
1976 through the winter 1977, “The Niagara Bible Conferences and
American Fundamentalism.”
64. The resolutions were “passed by that conference in its closing session
. . .” (Prophetic Studies of the International Prophetic Conference (Chicago,
November, 1886), New York: Revell, 1886, preface).
65. “The Imminency of the Second Advent,” in The Truth 21:207 (1895).
66. New Englander, Jan. 1879, p. 133, 139.
67. The coming of the Lord -- collection of articles by Open Brethren.
Eight Lectures on Prophecy -- unnamed, but likely Trotter and Smith.
Papers on the Lord’s Coming, C. H. Mackintosh.
Things to Come, J. R. Caldwell -- of Open Brethren.
Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects, W. Trotter.
68. In the last year of his life he included a book notice regarding the failure
of the “Brethren” in which he spoke of:
. . . the remarkable movement inaugurated by J. N. Darby, B.
W. Newton, George Muller and others, has utterly failed “as a
united testimony.” It would be well if the “Brethren” should
heed the suggestions and warnings he gives; but there is no hope
of this amid a people, who are on the whole the soundest in faith,
and most intelligent in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ,
“til He come” (The Truth 22:256).
B. W. Newton and G. Muller did not inaugurate the movement. In fact, B.
W. Newton’s worst offence was that he taught doctrine that involved Christ
being at an “unspeakable circumstantial distance from God.” G. Muller was
a chief instrument in the beginning of Open Brethrenism. These things are
fully documented in my books on J. N. Darby.
Concerning the history, it must be acknowledged that it is shameful.
Many evils arose and caused divisions when faithful men resisted the evil.
However, separation from evil is taught in Scripture. Moreover, the greater
the truth professed, the more difficult the practice of it, and the greater the
attacks of the Enemy.
So, evidently J. H. Brookes liked their ministry very much. But there
was some reason for such jibes . . . .
69. This paper is also found in D. R. Williams, James H. Brookes, A
Memoir, St. Louis, pp.147-152.
70. See my Precious Truths Revived and Defended Through J. N. Darby,
vol. 1 for this posttribulationist’s calumny of J. N. Darby and others.
“ring the changes” on the possibility of Christ coming any
moment . . . 71
THE 1886 CHICAGO PROPHETIC CONFERENCE
George C. Needham was the secretary and organizer of this
conference. Fleming H. Revell published the conferences
papers in 1886 under the title, Prophetic Studies of the
International Prophetic Conference (Chicago, November,
1886). Interestingly, this 1886 book advertised the following
books:
Eight Lectures on Prophecy, by Trotter and Smith
Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects, by W. Trotter
Papers on the Lord’s Coming, C. H. M. {Mackintosh}
Lectures on the Book of Revelation, by J. N. Darby
Notes on the Revelation, by H. H. Snell
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, by T. B. Baines
The Lord’s Coming Israel and the Church, by T. B.
Baines
Discourses on the Book of Revelation, by W. Lincoln
(Open Brethren)
C. H. M.’s Notes on the Pentateuch (six vols.)
This conference also adopted the resolutions of the 1878
conference (p. 165) -- see above. G. N. H. Peters said:
One leading object of the Conference was, to emphasize “the
near Coming of the Lord.” Hence in the formal declaration
of principles, the Conference, without a protest, as the
expression of its belief, passed the resolutions adopted by the
New York Conference eight years before. The interval of
eight years, with increased prophetic study, etc., led to the
cordial reception and renewed adoption, without a change of
a word, of the 3rd Resolution . . . . 72
The dispensational scheme presented at this conference
(alluded to by C. C. Ryrie, above) was that of A. J. Frost
(pp. 166, 167):
1. Referred to as the “paradisiacal dispensation” and
“Eden dispensation”
2. “Antediluvian dispensation”
3. “Patriarchal dispensation”
4. “Mosaic dispensation”
5. “Christian dispensation”
6. The millennium is spoken of as “millennial glory”
A. J. Frost also mentioned the course dispensations take and
that they teach us something (p. 166). He also used the
phrase “Christ’s heavenly people” (p. 177). A. T. Pierson
pointed out seven features that he thought characterizes all
dispensations (p. 32). The word dispensation is seen
throughout this book. Here is an interesting example by
George S. Bishop, and this particular statement has much to
commend it. Perhaps he was profiting from reading
expositions by the “brethren.”
71. Scriptural Truth of the Lord’s Return, New York: Revell, p. 145 (1922).
72. The Truth 21:210 (1895).
19
The times of the Gentiles includes the church dispensation,
but the phrase does not include the thought of the church,
which looked upon as heavenly, is outside of the scene
altogether, and incognito, waits for her rapture (p. 49).
D. C. Marquis even spoke of the postponement of the
kingdom, and the gospel of the kingdom going forth again
in a future day:
. . . by that rejection the manifestation of the kingdom is
postponed until the fullness of the gentiles is brought in -that gospel shall then be heralded in the whole inhabited
world in the certainty of the kingdom’s near approach -- a
witness to all nations -- and then (tote) the end will come (p.
87).
J. G. Princell spoke of the Lord’s coming for us before the
tribulation:
There will come “a time of trouble” unparalleled in all
history . . . But the true church of Christ, especially that
part of it living on earth at the time of Christ’s coming, has
the particular promise of being exempt from those awful
calamities . . . (p. 297).
We have reviewed sufficiently. Where came these men by
such teachings? No influence from the teachings of J. N.
Darby?
ADONIRAM JUDSON GORDON’S (1836-1895) TRIBUTE
Ernest B. Gordon, the son of A. J. Gordon, in the biography
of his father, quoted the following from him:
But if we turn to the other party we see movement almost
ultra-biblical, and a body of men almost ultra-apostolical in
their style and manner of life and service. It gathered to
itself a strong body of scholars, mostly from the pulpits of
the Church of England, who began to pour out biblical
literature in floods -- exposition and textual criticism,
lexicons and dictionaries for aiding in the study of the Bible,
synopses of Scripture, tract leaflets, etc. The Christian
world has been fairly inundated with these issues, and it may
be doubted if any body of Christians ever sent forth such a
mass and such a variety of biblical literature in the same
length of time.
If we were to describe in a word the theological
complexion of these writings, we should say that here we
have high Calvinism, preaching free grace with a fullness
and plainness never surpassed; practicing believer’ baptism,
and writing treatises on its symbolism rarely equaled for
deep spiritual insight; laying down a rule of life almost
ascetic in its requirement of separation from the world and
surrender of earthly possessions for Christ’s sake; and
holding with primitive apostolic fervor to the personal,
literal, and ever-imminent coming of Christ as the hope of
the church. It is our opinion that the best writings of this
body have furnished the text-books of modern evangelism,
and largely determined its type of doctrine and preaching.
Let us specify briefly.
There is C. H. Mackintosh’s “Notes on Genesis,”
“Exodus,” etc., a work for which Mr. Spurgeon has
expressed his high admiration, and which has had an
immense circulation. We know of hardly any modern
20
treatise which is so full of the meat and marrow of the gospel
as this, and which sets forth so clearly the fundamental
doctrines of atonement and justification. There is “The
Blood of Jesus,” by William Reid, a small treatise, but one
which has given to thousands of readers a new revelation of
the simplicity of the gospel. There are the “C. S. Tracts,”
{Charles Stanley, of Rotherham} brief presentations of the
gospel to the inquirer. They have been scattered far and
wide, and have, in our opinion, never been surpassed as
clear expositions of the way of life to the unconverted. Of
less popular works, we might mention Darby's “Synopsis of
the Bible,” the expositions of Kelly, Newton, Tregelles,
Soltau, Pridham, and Jukes. These books, especially those
of the first three, have constituted the chief theological
treasury of many of our evangelists. We can say for
ourselves that, from the first time our eyes fell upon these
treasures, we have nowhere else seen the gospel so
luminously presented -- the gospel of the grace of God,
disencumbered of legalism and mysticism and tradition.
Considered theologically these are humble treatises. So was
the “Theologia Germanica,” out of which, through Luther,
the German Reformation was born. So were the expositions
of Peter Boehler, from which Wesley says he received his
first true apprehension of saving faith. The springs of great
reformations are often hidden and remote, but they rarely fail
to be recognized in the end . . .
Such, we believe, after much thought and careful
investigation and frequent conversations with those best
qualified to judge, is the real spring of the present
evangelistic movement. It demands a fearless candor to
concede it, but we believe that truth requires us to confess
that we owe a great debt, both in literature and in life, to the
leaders of this ultra-Protestant movement. And we are glad
to believe that the light which it has thrown out by its
immense biblical study and research has been appropriated
by many of the best preachers and evangelists in our
Protestant churches. 73
Note that he is saying that he spoke with others who
73. Ernest B. Gordon, Adoniram Judson Gordon, A Biography, New York:
Revell, pp. 86-88 (1896). C. Allyn Russell wrote:
It is clear that Gordon held many ideas of the brethren. These
included biblical inerrancy; the “any moment” return of Jesus
“for” and “with” his saints; the secret rapture of the church; the
presence of the Spirit in the life of the believer leading to a
“separation” from the world; a zeal for evangelism and prophetic
studies, including dispensationalism; and, a firm opposition to
ritualism and formalism in worship. At the same time, Gordon,
who paid more attention to the Plymouth Brethren than to the
Princeton theologians, also had his disagreements with the
Brethren. He did not accept their conviction that the church “was
in ruins.” Instead, he chose to work within the denominational
structure rather than outside of it. Gordon was also an
historicalist in his understanding of the book of Revelation in
contrast to the futurist posture of Darby. Gordon’s change from
a futurist to an historicalist interpretation occurred because he
believed that the latter harmonized with fulfilled history and
chronology, and, significantly, was truer to Scripture (“Adoniram
Judson Gordon: Nineteenth-Century Fundamentalist,” American
Baptist Quarterly, p. 83, 1965).
concurred with his judgment.
JAMES H. BROOKES (1830-1897)
We have already indicated something of J. H. Brookes’
recommendation of “brethren’s” writings in his earlier
career. In answer to a question, in 1892 he wrote:
There are many commentaries on the book of Revelation
good, bad and indifferent. Most of them are trash. Among
the best are Canon Fauset in the Critical and Experimental
Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, William
Kelly, H. H. Snell, Newberry and William Lincoln. 74
In 1895 he wrote:
Their books and tracts were largely circulated, bringing
comfort and peace and joy to thousands of souls, quickening
interest in the study of the Bible, and spreading like a wave
of blessing through the Church of England and other
religious bodies. 75
He noted the death of C. H. Mackintosh in 1896:
As the editor of “Things New and Old” in twenty-two small
volumes, and as the author of Notes on Genesis and other
books of Moses, he has been an unspeakable blessing to
many thousands of souls. 76
H. A. Ironside claimed that J. N. Darby preached in J. H.
Brookes’ church. John Reid claims this:
His pulpit had often been open to them. J. N. Darby,
Malachi Taylor, Paul J. Loizeaux and others had preached
in his church in St. Louis at various times. Dr. Brooks {sic}
broke bread with an assembly of Brethren one Lord’s Day
shortly before he was called up higher. His comments on
Grant’s Numerical Bible were the following:
There is nothing like it, 77 because there is nothing that
so gets at the mind of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the
inspired Scriptures. It must be most helpful to the
believer, who delights to bow his intellect and reason to
the authority of God’s infallible and inerrant Word. 78
We have J. H. Brookes’ own statement about hearing J. N.
Darby:
Having often heard with great pleasure and profit Mr.
Darby . . . 79
J. N. Darby visited the North American continent seven
times from 1862-1877.
We have already commented on J. H. Brookes’ learning
74. The Truth 18:744 (1892).
75. Quoted from The truth 19:249 (1895) by L. D. Pettegrew, “The Niagara
Bible Conference and American Fundamentalism,” Central Bible Quarterly
winter, 1976, p. 15.
76. . The Truth 22:130 (1896).
77. . I must state my disagreement with this assessment by J. H. Brookes.
JND’s Synopsis is ahead of the Numerical Bible. And, helpful as it is, it is
a hindrance on the subject of life in the Son. I must add also that John
Reid’s comments on the Grant division, (particularly on A. P. Cecil, whose
relevant papers I have) and on the early history of the “Brethren,” leaves
much to be desired.
78. F. W. Grant: His Life, Ministry and Legacy, p. 29.
79. The Truth 21:313 (1895).
premillennialism from his personal study of Scripture but
also his silence as to how he learned the truth of the
pretribulation rapture. It may well be that he was helped by
James Inglis, if not by J. N. Darby directly, as was D. L.
Moody.
In keeping with the minimization of credit to the influence
of J. N. Darby, Larry L. Pettegrew wrote:
It ought not to be thought impossible that a Bible Student of
Brookes’ ability and earnestness could develop the essentials
of dispensationalism from the direct study of the Bible. 80
21
Philadelphia and sat at the feet of Inglis. Later, he met Mr.
Darby, who visited the United States and who became a
great friend of Dr. James H. Brookes, of St. Louis. Mr.
Owens himself told me about the trip of Mr. Moody to get
light on the Second Coming (Dr. W. S. Manners).
And James Inglis was instrumental in spreading the
“brethren’s” writings. J. N. Darby made a number of
references to D. L. Moody. 84
ARNO C. GAEBELEIN (1861-1945)
D. L. MOODY
In an 1877 biography of D. L. Moody, he is recorded as
saying:
Now, I can’t find any place in the Bible where it tells me to
wait for signs of the coming of the millennium, as the return
of the Jews, and such like; but it tells me to look for the
coming of the Lord . . . The trump of God may be sounded,
for anything we know, before I finish this sermon . . . 81
He was saved in late 1879 in his eighteenth year. It was at
the 1898 Niagara Bible Conference, where numbers of
leaders of the pretribulational/premillennial met together,
that he made the acquaintance of F. E. Fitch of New York,
of whom he wrote:
. . . he was one of the “brethren,” commonly called
“Plymouth Brethren,” of whose existence I knew nothing till
I met Mr. Fitch. 85
82
His biographers do not say where he learned so to speak.
However, The Witness for Sept. 1935, p. 228, cited this from
the Moody Monthly for Feb. 1935:
He and others were beginning to get light on the Second
Coming, and he asked {Henry} Moorehouse if he knew
anyone well posted on that truth? Moorhouse 83 said there
was a brother in New York, Richard Owens, a Dublin man
. . . who could tell him all about it . . . Owens recommended
him to Brother {James} Inglis, an old country teacher, then
living in Philadelphia, and publishing a monthly paper
{Waymarks in the Wilderness}. So Mr. Moody went to
80. Op cit., Fall 1977, p. 24.
81. Moody: His Words, Work, and Workers, New York: Nelson and Phillips,
p. 427 (1877).
82. . For example, W. H. Daniels, D. L. Moody, His Earlier Life and Work,
London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1892; W. R. Moody (his son), The Life of
Dwight L. Moody, New York: Revell, 1900.; H. D. Northrop, Life and
Labors of Dwight L. Moody, Philadelphia: Fidelity Publishing Co., 1899; J.
Wilbur Chapman, The Life and Work of Dwight L. Moody, Chicago: Gray,
1900.
83. Henry Moorhouse died in 1880. He had much to do with Open Brethren
(Geo. C. Needham, Recollections of Henry Moorhouse, Evangelist, Chicago:
Revell, pp.13, 15, ch. 15, etc., 1885, reprint of 1881 ed.). On Lord’s day
morning, if he could not worship in an Open Brethren type setting, he would
stay in his room and read and pray. The writer said:
The general name by which these “assemblies” are known is that
of “Brethren;” not in itself objectionable or inappropriate. There
are different families of “Brethren,” just as there are several
branches of Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists,
etc. One school, known as the Exclusive,” Henry never entered;
nor was the exclusiveness of some “open” assemblies very
congenial to his warm sympathies . . . With such, who respected
his convictions, he fraternized and labored. He adhered to his
principles, they to theirs (ibid., p. 199).
J. N. Darby, with whom, then, H. Moorhouse would not have fellowship in
the assembly, would see this as putting fellowship in service ahead of, and
above, fellowship in worship -- the reverse of what Scripture indicates. I
suppose if H. M. had “warm sympathies,” J. N. D. must have had cold
sympathies!
That is very strange in view of the dissemination of their
writings through, for example, Fleming H. Revell. In an
1888 book published by Revell there is an
84. J. N. Darby had met D. L. Moody at Chicago and complained of his
doctrine:
As to the work at Edinburgh, I dare say there may have been
conversions, and one must bless God for that. But Moody before
he came to England denied openly all work of grace in
conversion, and denounced it as diabolical in his own pulpit. I
hear he has got on in this subject, that M.’s tract did him good,
which is in great measure a resume of brethren’s teaching; the
author not concealing in his intercourse with others where he
learned it. But some of Moody’s false doctrine was taught in his
public ministrations in Edinburgh, according to R. and M.’s
account, which no doubt is correct, for we discussed it at
Chicago, and he held it there, namely, that no man is condemned
for his sins, but for not coming to the refuge -- sins are all borne
and put away for everybody (Letters 2:259).
He wrote:
But M.’s work, to say nothing of false doctrine in details,
avowedly mixes up Christianity with the world and worldly
influences, and uses them because it tells in favor of the work,
and fosters worldliness and the evils of Christendom . . . M., I
am told, has made progress; but when I knew him he denied
openly all grace in conversion, denounced it publicly when fully
discussed and held, and preached at Edinburgh that none were
condemned for their sins, only for not believing . . . (Letters
2:327, 328, Feb. 15, 1875).
Activity is all right, but activity instead of Christ -- and that is
Moodyism and United States religion -- is a most deadening and
worldly-making principle. The stir gone, the worldliness
remains, and the world despises it (p. 356, see pp. 358, 369, 375
also).
Later D. L. Moody had his attention directed to C. H. Mackintosh’s Notes
and secured all of C. H. M.’s writings, which he regarded as the “very key
to the Scriptures,” E. R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, p. 173.
85. Half A Century, New York: Our Hope, pp. 1, 83 (1930).
22
advertisement for C. H. Mackintosh’s Notes. 86 Moreover,
J. H. Brookes knew of them, referred to them in his
magazine, The Truth, and referred to their writings. Be that
all as it may, in his magazine, Our Hope, for Dec. 1903, the
“Book Reviews” recommended F. W. Grant’s The Lessons
of the Ages, which pointed out that Christianity is not an age.
He either overlooked that or rejected it. He also thought very
highly of F. W. Grant’s Numerical Bible. Our Hope for Jan.
1905 carried an age-ism scheme by H. H. Parsons,
“Dispensational Truth.”
When the work on the Scofield Reference Bible had
started, C. I. Scofield wrote to A. C. Gaebelein:
My beloved Brother: By all means follow your own views of
prophetic analysis. I sit at your feet when it comes to
prophecy and congratulate in advance the future readers of
the Reference Bible on having in their hands a safe, clear,
sane guide through what to most is a labyrinth. 87
In conversations with Frank E. Gaebelein, the son of A. C.
Gaebelein, he said to David A. Rausch:
My father was definitely a dispensationalist. I believe his
dispensationalism came from his association with the
Plymouth Brethren and through reading the writings of John
Nelson Darby, William Kelly, C. H. Mackintosh, and F. W.
Grant, and through knowing and also working with men like
F. C. Jennings, W. J. Eerdman, A. T. Pierson, Nathaniel
West and C. I. Scofield. 88
*We have special reference to the mighty men of God, real
scholars and at the same time humble men who were used in
the recovery of these truths over a hundred years ago in the
beginning of the movement known later by the name of
“Plymouth Brethren.” The most outstanding was John
Nelson Darby. 90
He, too, had reviews of writings of “brethren” in Our Hope,
and sold some of their books.
C. I. SCOFIELD (1843-1921)
He was saved in 1879. In 1897, C. I. Scofield wrote of J.
H. Brookes, in memorium of him, “. . . was my first and
best teacher in the oracles of God.” 91 A. C. Gaebelein
wrote about him learning from J. H. Brookes, which seems
to have taken place in 1879-1882:
At the feet of this choice servant of Christ, Scofield took his
place. Here he learned what he could not have learned in
any of the theological seminaries of that time. Being
instructed by Dr. Brookes in Bible study, he soon mastered,
with his fine analytical mind, the ABC’s of right division of
the Word of God, which he later embodied in a small
brochure, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. From Dr.
Brookes’ instructions he became acquainted with the high
points of sacred prophecy relating to the Jews, the Gentiles
and the Church of God. 92
The SRB was published in 1909.89 In his magazine, Our
Hope, April 1910, p. 671, he wrote:
John Nelson Darby was one of the most eminent scholars
who ever lived and possessed insight in the Word of God,
which made him one of the greatest gifts the Lord ever gave
to His church. And yet he was a very humble man.
We shall limit ourselves to one more reference from his pen:
In the beginning of the nineteenth century long forgotten and
obscured truths were recovered through the Spirit of God.
Prophetic truths, so prominent in the beginning of the
Church, where then brought to light and especially the
midnight cry: “Behold the bridegroom cometh” was
heralded. God’s plan and purposes with Israel, their
unfulfilled national promises, were also brought to light.
Other truths like the character of the true Church as the Body
and the Bride of Christ, the character of the present age and
its end and related truths, are once more understood and
preached.*
86. It even carries an advertisement for a paper by George Muller, of Bristol,
England -- which, by the way is posttribulationist – in L. W. Munhall, The
Lord’s Return and Kindred Truth, New York: Revell, 1888.
87. A. C. Gaebelein, Half a Century, The Autobiography of a Servant, New
York: Our Hope, p. 94 (1930).
88. David A. Rausch, Arno C. Gaebelein 1861-1945 Irenic Fundamentalist
and Scholar, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, p. 239 (1983).
89. The March 1909 issue of Our Hope announced the printing of the SRB.
In the listing of the editors (p. 656), the title REV. is conspicuous by its
absence in front of A. C. Gaebelein’s name alone.
90. A. C. Gaebelein, The Conflict of the Ages, New York: Our Hope, p. 62
(1933).
91. The Truth: or Testimony for Christ 22:312 (1896-1897).
92. The History of the Scofield Reference Bible, New York: Our Hope, p.
22 (1943).
York, 1873). 94
J. N. Darby’s
Work in America
J. N. Darby was in North America seven times spanning 18621877. 93 Interestingly, this is the initial era of the progress
made among North Americans regarding the pretribulation
rapture, as we have seen above. In his Letters, he notes the
terrible state of what professed the name of Christ (1:351, 460,
472, 514; 2:182, 189, 190, 201, 210, 341).
A few of his remarks regarding the effect of the truth are these:
The foundation of the truth as to the church’s position, its
hopes and its salvation, have been brought home to all
classes of Christians, and the authority of Scriptures
singularly exercised its power in their consciences (Letters
1:337, Hamilton, Ontario, 1862).
One who may be very useful, got his soul all cleared, or
rather filled with truth, at our meetings. He told me he saw
plainly that what brethren taught was the recovery of Paul’s
doctrine. So it really is. I am daily more convinced that
evangelicalism with partial truth is the abandonment of what
Paul taught (Letters 1:398, Toronto, 1865).
Tracts and books we cannot get enough of (Letters 1:459,
Toronto, 1866).
Tracts and books of brethren go out very freely: the vast
majority of what go out, go to the States . . . I think some
steps will have to be taken to print in the states . . . All
through the States the truths are drawing attention. Ministers
come even here to see what it is. Alas, how feeble we are as
a testimony (Letters 1:461, Toronto 1866).
But I feel the Lord has led me here, and I am in pretty full
intercourse with those exercised, among whom are more than
one official minister {James H. Brookes?} (Letters 2:180, St.
Louis, 1872).
In the States there is some progress. They are going on
happily in the east, some added, but no great progress in
numbers; in the west a good many Presbyterians, several
ministers among them, teach the Lord’s coming {i.e., the
pretribulation rapture}, the presence of the Holy Ghost, that
all sects are wrong, but as yet few move from their place
(Letters 2:182, 1872. See also pp. 190, 193 ).
The work of God is going on in the United States; the
conviction is extending that we possess something that they
do not possess. Preachers, elders, etc., have come to Boston
for the daily Bible readings. They acknowledge also that we
understand the scriptures better than they do; they often
oppose, but often defend, so that in some aspects brethren
are entering on a new phase of work (Letters 2:212, New
93.
Sept. 1862-Aug. 1863
Dec. 1864-June 1865
July 1866-May 1868
23
The difficulty is that a diligent effort has been made to
disseminate the truths we have been taught so as that
people should have them, and not act on them -- remain
where they are. Eminent ministers preach the Lord’s
coming, the ruin of the church, liberty of ministry, and
avowedly from brethren’s books, and stay where they are,
and there is a general deadening of conscience. Now people
come, are interested, surprised at all the truth they find in
scripture, but for the moment with most it ends there. This
casts me on the Lord. It was so the last time out west; still
the Lord called out some, and new gatherings were formed.
It is His work, but the wide spread of brethren’s truths alters
the character of the work. At present it is sowing time.
After all, they spoil the truths where they do not act on
them (Letters 2:308, New York, 1874. See also pp. 329,
339).
The Lord’s coming also is much before people’s minds; the
testimony as to it spreads considerably (Letters 2:391).
I have added the emphasis in the above quotation because that
should touch each conscience as to how far we have engaged
in such conduct. Trafficking in unacted-upon truth spoils it
and is dangerous to the soul. We want to choose only what
suits us and adapt it to the path of our choosing (for what is
really fleshly motives). We cannot reject parts of interrelated
truths without losing the full apprehension of what we have
selected for ourselves. The rejection of truth, the refusal to
practice it, results in improper apprehension of what we do
accept. Practice is based on doctrine. Defective doctrine
produces defect in personal and corporate walk. We are not
here for the Lord’s glory as we ought to be, though we may
be singing, “I surrender all.”
J. N. Darby Did Not
“Systematize” Dispensational Truth
Based on a stated reason why J. N. Darby left the Church of
England, Charles C. Ryrie claims that:
It was not until several years after leaving the Church of
England that Darby became interested in prophecy. His
interest was piqued through conferences at Powerscourt
House, out of which the Irvingian {Irvingite} movement
grew. “Darbyism” was first a protest over the practice of
the Established Church, not the propagating of a system of
Eschatology. 95
The statement contains a number of mistakes. J. N. Darby
was studying prophecy during Dec. 1826 and Jan. 1827. We
have his own statement that at that time he was led to see
from Isa. 32 that there would be a change of dispensation.
Moreover, a letter by J. G. Bellett, dated Jan. 31, 1927,
following a visit to J. N. Darby, confirms that he was
July 1870-Aug. 1870
June 1872-May 1873
Sept. 1874-July 1875
June 1876-May 1877
94. {It would be interesting to know if A. J. Gordon, of Boston, attended.}
95. Dispensationalism, p. 145 (1995).
24
studying prophecy. Furthermore, besides his own testimony,
we have the testimony of F. W. Newman that he heard from
him that we ought to be waiting for Christ to come at any
time and that the church was fallen (1827). All of this is
documented in my Precious Truths Revived and Defended
Through J. N. Darby, vol. 1 (1991). This book will also
correct the statement regarding the rise of the Irvingites.
IMPORTANT TEACHINGS FOR DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH
There are numbers of very important teachings necessary for
a proper understanding of dispensational truth. Consider
these in connection with the views of Isaac Watts given
above.
#
#
#
the church is not an age or a dispensation
#
the end of the testing of the first man consequent
upon the rejection of Christ at the cross
#
the distinction between the church (heavenly) and
Israel (earthly)
#
the church is not under a covenant (covenants
are for the earth)
#
the Christian is not under the law of Moses in
any sense
#
#
the pretribulation rapture
distinguishing dispensations from ages
the development of God’s ways in government
in the earth
difference between the kingdom of God and the
kingdom of heaven
#
the postponement of the kingdom
On p. 25, bottom, is a chart illustrating the dispensational
teaching of J. N. Darby. That chart is explained in J. N.
Darby’s Teaching Regarding Dispensations, Ages,
Administrations and the Two Parentheses, and will not be
explained in the book in the reader’s hands, though what we
shall consider is quite in keeping with the truth expounded in
that book on JND’s teachings from Scripture.
and the concept that God has changed His way of dealing
with man. But take note that before J. N. Darby this was
held by covenantists. It is age-ism, not the dispensational
truth taught by J. N. Darby!
This systematization idea seems to be the case to those
dispensationalists who claim this, because they equate
dispensations with ages, (add mainly the pretribulation rapture,
and the Israel church distinction, from J. N. Darby), then
project their erroneous definition that a dispensation is an age
on J. N. Darby, and claim that he systematized it. 98
And so they continue to develop “dispensational
theology.” In reality, they are working on Scofieldian ageism, which equates ages and dispensations, and omits very
important teachings. A recent exposition of Scofieldian
Dispensationalism Age-ism said this:
In the Bible an age is a dispensation. 99
Before C. I. Scofield, J. R. Graves wrote:
But translate aioon as it should be, age or
dispensation, and all the fog lifts . . . . 100
Below is a chart by Charles Caldwell Ryrie that wrongly
places J. N. Darby in the Dispensational Age-ism scheme.101
Just below his chart is a much more correct representation of
J. N. Darby’s teaching. That chart is followed with a chart by
Larry V. Crutchfield, 102 which is somewhat of an
improvement over some others in that he took note that J. N.
Darby did not hold the idea of dispensations before Noah.
However, he erroneously represents J. N. Darby’s view as
holding a dispensation from Abraham to the law, and also the
church as a dispensation. Keep in mind that he is a Scofieldian
age-ist and this colors the representation of J. N. Darby’s
thoughts. The author of that chart is somewhat aware of some
things J. N. Darby taught, but, not surprisingly, he opted for
the Scofield scheme.
The chart, “The Three Administrations,”shows what the
real value of the claims that J. N. Darby systematized
dispensational truth are really worth.
WHAT DID J. N. DARBY SYSTEMATIZE?
It is claimed that:
Dispensational concepts antedate Darby, although he
played a large part in the systematizing and popularizing
of dispensationalism. 96
{J. N. Darby} had much to do with the systematizing and
promoting of dispensationalism. But neither Darby nor
the Brethren originated the concepts involved in the system
. . . 97
The writer did not state what “the concepts” were that he had
in mind. However, these must be the concept of various ages
96. C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, Chicago: Moody, p. 83, first
ed., 1965.
97. Dispensationalism, Chicago: Moody, p. 67, 1995.
98. See, for example, C. C. Ryrie, Issues in Dispensationalism, Chicago:
Moody Press, p. 16, (1994).
99. In a book that rightly is opposed to progressive dispensationalism, What
on Earth is a Dispensation?, Springfield: Tribune Publishers, p. 108 (1994).
100. The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption Developed in Seven
Dispensations, Texarkana: Bogard Press, p. 162, 1971 [1883, first ed.].
101. Perhaps Arnold D. Ehlert was the first one to place J. N. Darby in the
way he appears in the chart. The Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 101-103, Jan. 1944
- Jan. 1946 carried a series of articles by A. D. Ehlert, “A Bibliography of
Dispensationalism.” These articles were published as a 110 page pamphlet
by Baker Book House in 1965, the same year that Charles C. Ryrie
published Dispensationalism Today, in which the chart appears on p. 84,
diagraming information in Arnold D. Ehlert’s work.
102. The Origins of Dispensationalism, The Darby Factor, Lanham:
University Press of America, p. 211 (1992).
T'
Chapter 1 .2: Did J. N . Darby's Teaching Influence the North American Prophetic Conferences? 25
REPRESENTATIVE DISPENSATIONAL SCHEMES
PIERRE POIRET
1646-1719
Ctrs
Creation to the
Deluge (Infancy)
Deluge to Moses
(Childhood )
JOHN EDWARDS
1639-1716
ISAAC WATTS
1674-1748
Innocency
Innoomcy
Adam fallen
Antediluvian
Adamical
after the Fall)
Noahical
Noahical
Abrahamict
Abrahamical
J.N. DARBY
1800-1882
Paradisaical
state (to the Hood)
JAMES H. BROOKES
1830.1897
JAMES M. GRAY
1851-1935
(Pub. 1901)
CL SCOFIELD
1843-1921
(Pub. 1909)
Eden
Edtnic
Innocency
Amedauvian
Antediluvian
Conscience
Patriarchal
Patriarchal
Human
Government
Noah
Abraham
Promise
Moses to Prophets
(Adolescence)
Israel
under law
Mosaical
Mosaical
Proph~dU
ets ti
under
(Youth) g
Manhood and
Old Age
Renovation of
Ail Things
Cluisdan
Chlistian
Mosaic
Gentiles
Messianic
Spirit
Holy Ghost
Millennium
Millennial
Mosaic
law
Church
Grace
Millennial
Kingdom
Fullness
of times
Eternal
This chart is from C. C . Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 71, sec . ed., 1995, used by permission of Moody Press.
The Three Administrations
or, The Develpment of God's Ways in Gov't in the Earth
(A representation of dispensational truth expounded by J . N. Darby)
TIMES OF THE GENTILES
(the earthly parenthesis of judgment on Israel)
QOM
NO EARTHLY
GOVERNMENT
Or
HEAVENLY
PARENTHESIS
(seated h: the heavenlies)
tte.e.httiNil.
THE
1000
YEARS
CAUJNG of the CHURCH
No govt
First disp's• ofpriests,
Consumation,
Man
kings & prophetsf th
oeAges
left to
dispensational
testing
begins
himself.
Testing of the First Man ended
Governmental apostasy.
Church apostasy.
Jewish apostasy.
THE
THEN
WORLD
-MIS AGE"
Gentile govt and the called
earthly people crucify Christ
man tested
R. A. Huebner Mar. 28, 1991
Part 1 : The Mystery as to which Silence was Kept
26
CHART FROM CRUTCHFLELD
A Comparative Chart of the Dispensational Systems
of Poiret, Watts, Darby and Scofield
Pierre Poiret
(1646-1719)
Isaac Watts
(1674-1748)
J.M_ Darby
(1800-1882)
C.I. Scofield
(1843-1921)
Innocency
Infancy
(Eefore the Fall)
P,Ps_ ssicel State
//,to FN!///
(Note Dispetaatton)
(Creation to Fall)
(Creation to Flood)
Adamical
Conscience
(After Fail to Noah)
(Fall to Flood)
r+oahical
Childhood
(Flood to Moses)
(Ficod to Abraham)
Abrah3micel
Promise
(Call of Abraham to
Law at Mt . Simi )
Masai cal
Israel: under Lev
Priesthood & Ki
Law
( Law at tit . Sinai
Manhood
Old Age
(Christ to Millennium
Renovation of
All Things
(Millennium)
Abraham
Human Gov't
(Flood to Babel)
(Call of Abraham to
Let., et Mt Sinai)
(tlosaic Law to Christ)
(Prophets to Christ)
NO3h
(Flood to Call of
Abraham)
(Call of Abraham to
rues)
Adolescence
Youth
(Mons to Proohets)
Innocency
Christian
M►liwridm
(Not$Dispensstion)
Gentiles
Sprit/Christian
Gentile/Church
Millennium
(Second Coming
e
to
End of Millnmum)
to Calvaru)
Grace
(Calvarq to Second
Coming)
Kingdom
(Second Coming to
End of Millennium)
Represents approximately equal dispensations on the
horizontal spectra.
® Represents periods of Biblical history not considered
to be dispensational in nature.
Poiret, Pierre . The Divine Oecoasmy,•or, . Ao Universal System of tie Worts
6 vols. London, 1713.
ism
Watts, D.D. 6 vols.
The )sorts of Me Revert/rd sad lterned
sad Pdrposes of Cod Tor.rd s /Yen, Demonstrated.
Watts, Isaac .
Compiled by Rev . George Burder. London: J. Barfield, 1810. Vol. 4, pp . 1- 40.
Derby, J. N. Tie Collected Worts of J. N. DsrOy. Edited by William Kelly. 34vols.
Reprint ed. Sunbury, Penn.: Believers Bookshelf, 1971 . Vol. 1, p. 124r; vol . 2,
pp. 92, 98,374f; vol. S, p. 384f.
Scofield, C . I . Rfddtly Dtvidinf Me Nord of Trut0. Fincastle,Ys . : Scripture Truth
Book Co., n4 . pp. 12-16.
This chart is from Larry V. Crutchfield, The Origins of Dispensationalism, The Darby Factor, p. 211 (1992); copyright,
University Press of America.
Of course J. N. Darby distinguished ages. Certainly he
distinguished the age from Adam to Noah. But that was not
what he called a dispensation, when strictly speaking. 103
In an address in June 1839 at a gathering at Leamington,
J. N. Darby stated:
Before the proper dispensation of God, we get the world
before the flood; not exactly a dispensation, but a body of
men left, in a certain sense, to themselves, Here there was
testimony, as in Enoch and Noah, but no dispensed order
or system by which God acted as governing the earth. 104
The church is not, properly so called, a dispensation.
105
These few examples show that the above charts do not rightly
reflect what he taught.
Let us be sure we understand what is going on.
These are the steps taken in Scofieldian Dispensational
Age-ism:
# observe that some before J. N. Darby
distinguished ages
# explicitly, or in effect, define a dispensation as
an age
# find that J. N. Darby distinguished ages also
(which he did, of course)
# be unaware of, or ignore, the fact that he did not
hold that a dispensation is an age
# borrow from him
-- the distinction between the church and
Israel
-- the pretribulation rapture
# omit
-- the ending of the testing of the first
man at the cross
-- the development of the ways of God in
government in the earth
-- the ruin of the church on earth as seen
in responsibility
# conclude that J. N. Darby systematized
dispensational truth (as defined by the tenets of
age-ism)
# and claim that Scofieldians are further
developing “dispensationalism”
This, then, illustrates what I mean by “age-ism,” the mistake
at the root of looking for sorts of dispensational schemes
(age-ism schemes, actually) before J. N. Darby and then
103. We are lacking a word to designate the shaded areas in the chart on p.
25, The Three Administrations.
104. “The Dispensations and the Remnants,” Collectania, p. 42.
105. Collected Writings 5:15; see also 4:328; 25:24; 13:155.
27
saying that he systematized dispensationalism. Age-ism is
not the dispensational truth brought out through J. N. Darby,
though the Scofieldian Age-ism would not exist without the
distinction J. N. Darby brought out between Israel and the
church, as well as the truth of pretribulation rapture, etc..
The New Scofield Reference Bible
The New Scofield Reference Bible (NSRB) has the same
definition of a dispensation as the original (p. 3).
Interestingly, the sixth dispensation has been renamed:
“Church (Acts 2:1)” (p. 3).
Now we have a comment on the age:
The sixth dispensation: the Church. A new age was
announced by our Lord Jesus Christ in Mt. 12:47-13:52
(p. 1162).
The Church Age . . . (p. 1162).
The comment about our Lord announcing a new age results
from seeking to find a Scripture text by which to justify the
idea of a “Church Age.” While some notes have been
improved, the NSRB carries on the Scofieldian
Dispensational Age-ism.
Covenant Pretribulationism
Alias “Progressive
Dispensationalism”
The proper name for “Progressive Dispensationalism” is
Covenant Pretribulationism.
This removes the selfcongratulating fabrication about it being dispensational and
places it as a variant of covenantism.
Covenant
Pretribulationism also keeps in view the move towards
Covenant Posttribulationism.
In 1986 a group was formed within the Evangelical
Theological Society for the study of dispensationalism. In
reality, a drive toward raproachment with covenant theology
undergirded this. A number of books have recently been
published which elaborate the new system, selfcongratulatingly named by themselves “Progressive
Dispensationalism.” In Christianity Today, Sept. 12, 1994,
a paper appeared written by Darrell L. Bock, entitled
“Charting Dispensationalism.” In “charting” the new
course, the compass has reversed, and rather than making
progress, the ship is on a high-speed course to the port of
covenantism. They have lost their bearings altogether. In
large letters under the article’s title we read:
A group of progressive scholars is mapping out a
dispensational theology for a new era (p. 26).
Well! Perhaps 10 or 20 years from now a group of even
more progressive scholars may map out a dispensational
theology for an even newer era! These may be their
28
students, who, realizing the full meaning of where the
compass is pointing, will need only to throw the truth of the
pretribulation rapture overboard and then immediately dock
at covenant premillennialism. Following is a brief indication
of these ‘progressive’ pretensions.
PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISTS
ARE COVENANT AGE-ISTS
The book, Progressive Dispensationalism, adds four more
writers to those outlined by Arnold Ehlert who precede J. N.
Darby. And since Progressive Dispensationalism is really a
covenant scheme, the note explaining the reason for these
additions 106 indicates this fact, as well as showing that in the
minds of these writers a dispensation is an age. Their claim
for why A. Ehlert omitted these four is this:
Compiled at a time when “dispensationalism” and
“covenant theology” were polarizing through mutual
criticism, Ehlert purposely{?} omitted the dispensational
schemes of early covenant theologians. He did not omit
all covenantalists {isn’t that strange, in view of their first
sentence? How do they know this to be a fact?}, as can be
seen from some of his entries (e.g., Charles Hodge).
However, dispensational distinctions made by theologians
of the covenant tradition must be included as part of the
general practice of dividing Scripture into a series of
dispensations.107
In the last sentence in this quotation, “dispensational
distinctions” is properly described as ‘age distinctions.’
Isaac Watts, reviewed above, was a covenantalist who was
also among such included by A. Ehlert.
#
These writers have in common with those covenantists that
they also are, at bottom, covenantists.
#
They also have in common with them that they are Ageists. The “dispensational distinctions made by theologians
of the covenant tradition” are age-ist distinctions. They
had no real understanding of dispensational truth, wherein
dispensation and age are not the same thing.
#
Moreover, dispensationalism and covenantism polarized in
J. N. Darby’s day as anyone would know who has any idea
of what he taught and the character attacks and odium
heaped upon him.
#
It is utterly absurd to put J. N. Darby in a series of these
writers. 108
CHRIST ALLEGEDLY THE KING OF THE CHURCH
106. The four added are: Hugo Grotius (1583-1643); Johannes Cocceius
(1603-1669); Herman Witsius (1636-1708); Francis Turretin (1623-1687).
107. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism,
p. 118.
108. They do take note that Larry Crutchfield, The Origins of
Dispensationalism, pointed out that J. N. Darby did not hold that there were
dispensations before the flood and also that the present is not a dispensation.
Yet he is placed in their table of schemes. Such is the power of age-ism on
the mind. It seems to hinder apprehension of the significance of this.
Their agenda is to deny that the church is heavenly and has
an eternal, heavenly position, and assert that the present is a
phase of the Davidic reign of Christ. Were I to attempt to
show as concisely as possible how this lowers Christ’s
position and the Christian’s place before God, I would select
the following sentences from the book Progressive
Dispensationalism, 109 by two who were teachers at Dallas
Theological Seminary:
. . . the New Testament presents Jesus’ present position
and activity as a fulfilment of promises of the Davidic
covenant (p. 179).
He is the descendent of David who has been anointed,
enthroned, and given “all authority in heaven and on
earth” (Matt. 28:18). When He acts, He acts as the
divine and Davidic king (p. 186).
All the language describing the church in the New
Testament is either directly drawn from or is compatible
with the genres of covenant promise and the Messianic
Kingdom (p. 206).
Christ presently rules the church from heaven by the Holy
Spirit (p. 265).
. . . the community of the King, the church (p. 281).
It is an appalling lowering of Christ’s present position,
especially as Head of the body. Just think of Him when
acting as the Head, that He is acting as the Davidic king!
Consequently, it also lowers the Christian’s position to that
of a millennial saint. In a practical sense, they are “not
holding fast the head” (Col. 2:19). Long ago J. N. Darby
remarked:
Again, I find in one essay, “the body itself is a visible
community -- a kingdom.” This is mischievous confusion.
The body of Christ is not His Kingdom . . . His body is
Himself; His kingdom is what he rules over, apart from
Himself, He being King over it. King of the church is a
thing unknown in Scripture * . . . We are His body, His
bride -- of His flesh and of His bones; His kingdom is not
that. He does not nourish and cherish His kingdom, He
governs it, not His bride and His body.
* Even “King of Saints” is recognized to be a false reading.
It should be “King of nations.” 110
THE CHURCH IS A WORLDLY THING
Let us put a few statements together which show that these
writers regard the church as a worldly entity. Well, certainly
so, since Christ allegedly rules the church, the community of
the King, from heaven by the Holy Spirit.
A dispensation is an administrative or management
arrangement. The Bible uses this term to describe God’s
relationship to the world. Not only is God’s present
relationship to the world described as a dispensation . . .
(p. 127).
Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.
The church is the new dispensation which God has
organized . . . (p. 111).
. . . seeing the relationship between God and the world as
a dispensation emphasizes purpose and overall planning
(p. 109).
COVENANTIZING THE CHURCH
. . . this new dispensation of the Spirit is precisely the
inauguration of the new covenant (p. 111).
. . . Christ . . . opened the new dispensation of the new
covenant (p. 198).
Our study of the history of the covenants shows them to be
the structure by which the history of redemption is carried
out (p. 199).
These dispensations can be described as ways of relating
to biblical covenants. They can also be seen as
progressive stages of salvation history which finds its
fulfillment in the revelation of the eschatological kingdom
of God (p. 127).
The millennial kingdom, in the view of these writers, will be
a higher blessing than the church has. What we have here is
covenant theology at work. Dispensations, accordingly, are
the unfolding of covenants. Dispensations are seen as
progressive stages of salvation history. So thought Isaac
Watts. The church is one of the dispensations and so it is a
stage in the unfolding of covenants and a stage in the
progress of salvation history. So thought Isaac Watts (and
others, of course, who held, and hold, to covenant theology).
Only, these writers believe in a millennial kingdom and still
(inconsistently) believe in a pretribulation rapture.
NEW COVENANT LAW AND SPIRITUAL ALCHEMY
The progressive dispensationalism of New Testament
theology is not antinomian. For while it teaches that
Mosaic covenant law has ended dispensationally, it also
teaches that it has been replaced by new covenant law . .
. (p. 199).
These writers do not explicate the implications of us being
under “new covenant law.” However, Kenneth L. Barker is
more specific:
Even if the Old Testament moral law had not received the
approbation of the New Testament, it would still have
been binding on us today because of its very nature. 111
29
course. At any rate, Christians are supposed to be under the
“new covenant law,” but transmute the day from Saturday to
Sunday, while Israel in the millennium will be under the new
covenant law but observe Saturday! No doubt theology has
great flexibility, but I doubt God’s new covenant law shares
that theological flexibility. By the way, law means a fixed
principle of operation -- but theology is shifty. The
Christian is not under “the moral law,” nor has the law died.
The Christian is dead and the law does not apply to the
Christian who has died with Christ (Rom. 6). But that is not
our subject here.
Not only is the spiritual alchemy seen in transmuting
the seventh day Sabbath into Sunday, it is also seen in
bringing Gentiles, now, under the new covenant law.
Scripture is express that the new covenant is with Israel.
What I want to point out by this is that the spiritualization
process of covenant theology is at work in this system and
we may expect it to enlarge in this “mapping out a
dispensational theology for a new era.”
FINDS THE CHURCH SPOKEN OF IN THE OT
“Progressive Dispensationalism” is a Judaizing system
rapidly approaching Posttribulational Covanantism. Already
having removed the proper distinction between Israel and the
church, denying that the church is heavenly as well as
eternally distinct, and that it is “the community of the King”
and is ruled from heaven by Christ, regarding the church as
under a covenant and under the law, it remains to jettison the
pretribulation rapture, so landing in covenant
premillennialsm. Possibly these teachers will not do that -but will their students maintain this illogical and unstable
position?
It follows from the character of what we have already
observed that they would be one with those who find the
church in the OT. Thus, contradicting the Scriptures, a
leader of the retrograde, Judaizing dispensationalists, who
teaches at Biola, R. L. Saucy, aligns himself with the
antidispens-sationalists in their treatment of the texts we will
examine in Chapter 1.3, saying:
Thus we agree with the non-dispensationalists that Paul’s
teaching concerning the mystery of the church in the union
of Jew and Gentile in Christ is a fulfilment of Old
Testament predictions. 112
“New covenant law,” then, is the 10 commandments. This
is what Christianity is reduced to in covenantism. Observe
that in the millennium, the Sabbath will be observed on the
seventh day (Ezek. 46:1; see 44:24; 45:17) One of the 10
commandments has to do with the Sabbath (Ex. 20:8-11; the
seventh day, based on Gen. 1). Covenant theology has
transmuted the Sabbath into Sunday -- because if you are
under the 10 commandments, you are to observe the
Sabbath. This transmutation is a theological cheat, of
Charles C. Ryrie, who, with others, is holding the line
against this new system, quoting from a 1991 taped
proceedings of the Evangelical Theological Society, cites
Darrell L. Bock, a leader of this retrogression, who
“acknowledged that {G. E.} Ladd ‘would not disagree with’
the fundamental thrust of the structure of progressive
111. In Craig A Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 302 (1992).
112. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, p. 163, 1993.
30
dispensationalism.” 113 George Ladd is recognized as a
covenant premillennialist (posttribulationist).
be indifferent to one part of the revelation, because it does
not immediately bear on the question of his salvation.
In still maintaining a few things that distinguish
themselves from “non-dispensationalists,” the position of the
retrograde dispensationalists (who do not deserve the word
dispensational) is, indeed, as the amillennialist, V. Pothress
said, “inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find
it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically
between classic dispensationalism and covenental
Premillennialsm.” 114 This remark assumes that they would
hold on to the idea of a millennial kingdom. Another
adherent of covenant theology, Keith A. Matheison, rightly
concluded that it is not dispensationalism:
God’s revelation, in its full sense, and comprising all
His arrangements on earth, is a structure of many stories,
if I may say so. All the stories were not lighted up at
once, but according to the need of those who would make
use of the light. At one time it might have been sufficient
to light up one story; but as the darkness increased (for in
spite of what rationalists say, men are getting, in the spirit
of their minds, every day further from God), there was of
necessity a need for increase of light, which God, in His
grace, vouchsafed for the use of those who would use it.
Prophecy contained a suited and inexhaustible supply of
the needed light; but this light could not act serviceably on
any one who did not apprehend the order of God's
counsels on earth. Such an one neither occupied the right
story, nor did he (from not understanding his calling) seek
or receive that knowledge from God which would have
made him, not only know his proper place before God, but
would also have furnished him with grace and power to act
therein according to God's pleasure. How can God give
a soul light to see the future of His purposes, if he be
ignorant of or indifferent to the present? He who knows
dispensational truth imperfectly, can never know prophetic
truth rightly. If I disregard the manner of God's
arrangements -- the position of His people now according
to His mind -- how can I expect Him to unfold to me more
distant things? “To him that hath shall more be given.”
It is no excuse to say that the Church is in ruins {and it
is}; for if I cared for God's counsel in the Church, the
more inexpressive of that counsel I found the materials to
be, the more should I seek to maintain it.
Progressive dispensationalism is not dispensationalism.
But neither is it Reformed. Still unchanged are a number
of its doctrines of salvation. For now, “progressive
dispensationalism” is a generic form of premillennial,
modified Arminianism. Its proponents are moving in the
right direction in regard to the church and the end times.
But honesty calls for us all to recognize that while they are
not yet Reformed, either can they any longer be rightly
called “dispensational.” 115
Bruce K. Waltke wrote:
This new perestroika within dispensationalism augers well
for the future of dispensational schools, especially for
Dallas Theological Seminary, with which most of them are
related as former students and/or faculty members . . .
These younger dispensationalists, having come under the
impact of realized eschatology, especially in renowned
universities, know that careful exegesis must lead at least
to this restructuring of the historic model. 116
The properly descriptive name, then, for this system is
Covenant Pretribulationism.
Surrendering
When souls surrender dispensational truth, they have
committed themselves to the ocean of feelings and
demands without a compass. If dispensational truth be not
God's present revelation, what is it? And if it be, can I
expect to walk in the present scene according to His mind,
without the light which He in His grace has supplied me?
Man knows nothing of God, except through revelation;
how inconsistent then for a child of God to admit that he
cannot see the necessity of adhering to that which is the
revelation for this present time; for, as a Christian, he
must own that, if it were not for revelation, he must have
sunk into eternal darkness; and he has no right to reject or
113. In Issues in Dispensationalism, Chicago: Moody, p. 22 (1994).
114. Understanding Dispensationalists, p. 137, sec. ed.
115. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, p. 137.
116. In Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel
and the Church, p.350.
God will not swerve from His own counsel; and
surely it is marvelous grace that He should allow us to
learn it; and still more, that according as we know and
submit ourselves to it, He should entrust us with further
purposes of His mind. The more difficult the times
become, the more do I need dispensational truth. What
other chart have I? How can I solve any of the
incongruities that encompass me, or discover a clue to my
right course in them, if I do not know the order and
intention of God, and how that has been counteracted and
disturbed by the wickedness of man? From the smallest
remnant of the Church I ought to be able to put together
what the Church should be in God's counsels, and
therefore to serve it according to His thoughts and love.
In this relation to it I should most truly estimate what
damage it had suffered, and what had inflicted the
damage. 117
117. The Present Testimony 13:443, 444, title modified.
Chapter 1.3: Did the OT Prophets Speak About the Church?
31
Chapter 1.3
Did the OT Prophets
Speak About the Church?
I distinguish entirely between the church and prophecy. I do not believe the church is the subject, though it is the
recipient and depositary of prophecy, as Abraham was of what should happen to Lot (Letters of J. N. Darby 1:131).
‘Literal’ or
‘Spiritual’ Interpretation?
Students of prophecy are aware that there is a long-standing
dispute regarding whether or not the prophets should be
interpreted ‘spiritually’ or ‘literally,’ whatever the merits or
demerits of these two terms may be. The spiritualizers say
that the prophets spoke about the church. They are now
joined in this claim by certain ‘dispensationalists’ who
flatteringly call themselves “progressive dispensationalists.”
In reality they are retrograding into covenant theology, having
already embraced this and other notions, e.g., that the church
is not heavenly. However, Scripture expressly contradicts the
notion that the O. T. prophets spoke of the church which is
Christ’s body.
Moreover, ‘literalists’ believe that the kingdom
prophesied by the OT prophets was offered to Israel. But it
is most important to observe the form in which the offer was
made. It was offered, really, in the Person of the Lowly One,
so as to be a test of the moral state) and, Christ being
rejected, it is postponed. This coming kingdom, of 1000
years’ duration, is called the millennium.
Many literalists erroneously believe that the first question
to be settled is whether or not the prophets are to be
interpreted literally. That is, they begin with a discussion of
‘literal’ versus ‘spiritual’ interpretation of the prophets. Often
they point out all the prophecies concerning Christ’s coming
into the world that were literally fulfilled and go on from there
to show that prophecy must be generally understood this way.
While I believe there is validity to such arguments, the denial
of the force of these Scriptures simply shows that the denier
does not understand in his soul the mystery. If silence
concerning this mystery was kept in OT times, it follows that
the prophets did not speak about it. It then follows that the
prophets must be understood literally because their prophecies
did concern an earthly kingdom under Messiah’s reign before
His ancients, in glory. Hence these Scriptures are flatly
contradicted by those who ‘spiritualize’ the prophets in order
to maintain a theological system, using various methods, a few
of which we shall examine further on.
I believe that the place to begin is to have God tell us how
to understand; and He has done so in several Scriptures that
tell us that silence was kept in the OT regarding the mystery.
This tells us that the spiritualization of the OT prophets by
those who hold to covenant theology flies in the face of what
God has expressly stated. Thus, being so guided, and
submitting thereto, we are on the ground of faith -- which
comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. This is
“the obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:25, 26), regarding the
mystery (not the gospel -- cp. Rom. 1:1-5), to which we will
return below. We have the Scriptures that are written to
Christians, as such, and turn to them first for guidance. The
first thing to be settled is not ‘literal’ versus ‘spiritual’
interpretation. 118 Listen to what the Apostle to the Gentiles
wrote:
Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which
is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his
body, which is the assembly; of which I became minister,
according to the dispensation of God which [is] given me
towards you to complete the word of God, the mystery which
[has been] hidden from ages and from generations, but has
now been made manifest to his saints . . . (Col. 1:24-26).
118. This is not to say that discussion of that matter is unimportant. I am
speaking of priority from having the Christian Scriptures before us. The
subject of interpretation is discussed in my Daniel’s 70 Weeks and the
Revival of the Roman Empire. The reader will also be helped in reading
The Mystery and The Mystery and the Covenants, available from Present
Truth Publishers.
32
Part 1: The Mystery as to Which Silence Was Kept
The great secret that had been “hidden throughout the ages
in God” (Eph. 3:9), which completes the Word of God,
ought surely to be before our hearts, providing light and
guidance in our understanding of the purpose of God for His
own glory, and how to rightly understand what He formerly
did. How this bears on the subject of the coming kingdom
predicted in the O. T. is this: since the prophets did not
speak of the mystery, they are to be understood literally
(with due allowance for figures of speech and symbols), and
there is no fulfillment of the prophesied kingdom during the
present period. In order to have these prophecies fulfilled
now, it is necessary to ‘spiritualize’ the statements of the
prophets so that no literal kingdom is meant. Among other
things, appeal is made to the fact that the prophets do use
obvious figures of speech and symbols and so it is claimed
that when they prophesied about Jerusalem, Israel and Judah,
the new covenant, etc., the church was meant. This involves
two things:
# the mystery is defined to be something that it really is
not, so as to have the OT prophets speak of it
# contradict the Word when it says silence was kept
concerning the mystery
Any sensible literalist allows, of course, for the use of
figures of speech and symbols. 119 But, he rightly says,
Judah, Jerusalem and Israel mean just that and not the
church. Accordingly, the new covenant (Jer. 31; Heb. 8) is
for the future nation of Israel during the millennium.
Let us now look at those Scriptures which show that the
O. T. prophets did not speak about the church. It is claimed
by spiritualizers of the OT prophets that the OT quotations
found in Acts and the Epistles show that the prophets spoke
of the church. Lord willing, numbers of these will be
examined later. Suffice it to say here that while those quoted
texts will be fulfilled in the coming 1000 year reign of
Christ, they are cited by the NT writers as having some
bearing or application in principle meanwhile, and designate
neither a complete nor partial fulfillment
The Bearing of the
Mystery of Christ on
the Question of
Prophetic Interpretation
THREE SCRIPTURES CONCERNING THIS MYSTERY
We are going to look at three Scriptures concerning the mystery
of Christ and the church. Received into the soul, via the
conscience, which is the inlet of truth, we will see that the OT
119. See W. Kelly’s “Language of Prophecy” in The Bible Treasury, New
Series 13:49-54; and the first chapter in my Daniel’s 70 Weeks and the
Revival of the Roman Empire, obtainable from Present Truth Publishers.
prophets did not speak about the church. These three Scriptures
are:
Rom. 16:25
silence
kept in
the times of
the ages
Col. 1:26
Eph. 3:9
hidden
from
ages &
generations
hidden
throughout
the ages
in God
Something can be learned by weighing the various emphases
in the above diagram.
LISTENING TO WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS
Once I was asked to visit an Arminian and we came to Heb.
6:1-6, where it is said that if a person falls away it is
“impossible” to renew him again unto repentance. That is
not good for the lost-again saved-again notion. But he had
a triumphant reply. He said that “impossible” meant “almost
impossible.” Well, that brought the discussion to an end.
That was the sign of a determined agenda, not of subjection
to the Word of God.
On another occasion I wrote to someone who had written
statements subversive of the holiness due God’s house. I
asked him what a “partaker” of his wicked works (2 John
11) meant. He replied that it meant a “partial partaker.” He
could not embolden himself to flatly deny it to entirely get rid
of what was distasteful to his unholy view so he did his best
to water it down by qualifying it as “partial.” He too had an
agenda.
The same is true with the fact that God’s Word expressly
declares that silence was kept about the mystery. The
opposition amounts to this: that the mystery was almost
secret, that it was partially hidden. We see here the same
phenomenon as in the above two cases. There is an agenda
-- and that agenda is to find the church in the OT; to find
that the prophets did speak of the mystery. It is a fact that
different opposers of this silence use different explanations,
but the agenda is that the mystery was not unknown in the
O. T.
If we will receive into our souls, through our consciences,
that in Heb. 6 impossible means just that, and in 2 John 11
partaker means just that, and that silence in Rom. 16:25
means just that, we will have light from God instead of the
darkness of a human agenda. The mystery is “made known
for obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26). When God says that
silence was kept, the obedience of faith believes.
THE MYSTERY IS NOT THE GOSPEL
To repeat, from our vantage point of having the completed
Scriptures, the first thing to be settled is not ‘literal’ versus
‘spiritual’ interpretation. What needs to be done first is to
settle within one’s soul the force of Rom. 16:25, 26 and
several other Scriptures.
Chapter 1.3: Did the OT Prophets Speak about the Church?
Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my
glad tidings and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according
to [the] revelation of [the] mystery, as to which silence has
been kept in [the] times of the ages, but [which] has now
been made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures,
according to commandment of the eternal God, made
known for obedience of faith to all the nations . . . .
(Rom. 16:25, 26). 120
W. Kelly’s translation of the passage is this:
Now to him that is able to establish you according to my
gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to [the]
revelation of [the] mystery kept in silence in times of the
ages but now manifested and by prophetic scriptures
according to commandment of the everlasting God made
known for obedience of faith unto all the Gentiles, to God
only wise, through Jesus Christ, to whom [be] the glory
unto the ages of the ages (or, for ever), Amen. (Rom.
16:25-27). 121
We are going to discover that opposers of dispensational truth
undermine the word “secret,” as they must necessarily do,
since their object is to find reference in the OT to this
mystery, concerning which silence was kept in the times of
the ages. We take note here that Arndt and Gingrich’s
Lexicon says:
:LFJZD4@< PD`<@4H "ÆT<\@4H F,F4(0:X<@< a secret
that was concealed for long ages Ro 16:25.
122
Notice from this quotation that not only was it a secret and
concealed, but concealed for long ages. Some say that “The
most natural reference, however, is to ‘eternity past’. . .,” 123
This would allow for it to be in the OT Many objectors to
dispensational truth regard the time reference to the OT as is
evidenced by their claim that there was not a total silence in
O. T. times, and that it was only partially hidden, as we shall
see below.
It is clear that the OT spoke of future salvation for the
Gentiles. That is not the mystery. The OT had witnessed to
the manifestation of the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:21)
and many other things concerning Christ (Luke 24:44-46).
These things are not the mystery.
When antidispensationalists say that these things are the mystery, I ask:
are they doing even the slightest justice to the statement, “as
to which silence has been kept in [the] times of the ages”?
120. Scripture quotations are from the translation by J. N. Darby, unless
otherwise indicated.
121. See his Notes on Romans, in loco.
122. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press ,sec. ed., p. 749,
The interested reader may consult the NT use of sigao in The
Englishman’s Greek Concordance, p. 685 (#4601 in the cross reference to
Strong’s Concordance).
123. . Everett F. Harrison on Romans in F. E. Gaebelein, ed., The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, vol. 10, p. 170,
1976.
33
Why not forthrightly state, “No, silence was not kept. I
can find the mystery in many places in the OT – it is easy to
find predictions of salvation for the Gentiles”? Is not this
what the erroneous notion that the mystery is salvation for the
Gentiles, equally with the Jews, really amounts to? You will
say that I am caricaturizing the opponents. We shall see
below.
Now, not only does the fact that silence was kept
concerning the mystery tell us that the predicted salvation for
Gentiles is not the mystery, 124 but Rom. 16:25 makes an
instructive distinction. “Now to him that is able to establish
you, according to”:
#
“my glad tidings
and
#
the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to [the]
revelation of [the] mystery.”
Clearly, there are two things here, not one. We do not read,
‘according to my glad tidings, the revelation of the mystery.’
But I suggest that this is the way, in effect, that antidispensationalists take the passage.
The loss in not seeing this is great. Look at the words,
“Now to him that is able to establish you.” This verse tells
us that two things are necessary for establishment. The glad
tidings only does part of this. A right apprehension of the
preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the
mystery (and, of course, a corresponding Christian walk in
this truth -- not mere profession about it), is necessary for
establishment. Oh, you object, just because I do not accept
‘dispensationalism’ with its distinction between Israel and the
church, etc., I am not established? Well, I did not say it, the
text says it.
It is the same concerning the gospel. What is needed is
a right apprehension of the glad tidings concerning “that
Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that
he was buried; and that he was raised the third day,
according to the scriptures,” etc. (1 Cor. 15:34) (and of
course, a corresponding Christian walk in this truth -- not
mere profession about it -- is necessary for establishment).
Oh, you object, ‘just because I do not accept your
dispensational distinction between the way of approach to God
in Israel, and what you say about approach to God now, I am
124. I am aware that there is some variation from this idea. That should not
be surprising in view of how blatantly contradictory to the expressions
“silence” and “hidden” the notion is, as we saw in the case of W.
Hendrickson. Observe, then, Charles Hodge:
. . . In all these places the mystery spoken of is God’s purpose of
redemption, formed in the counsels of eternity, impenetrably
hidden from the view of men until revealed in his own time. It
was this plan of redemption thus formed, thus long concealed, but
now made known through the Gospel, that Paul was sent to bear
as a guiding and saving light to all men (A Commentary on the
Epistle to the Ephesians, Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 170, 1856,
1980 reprint).
34
not established? Well, I think we still need priests today who
can offer a sacrifice -- the mass.’
THE MYSTERY
At this point it would be well to have a few introductory
remarks concerning what a New Testament mystery is and
what this particular mystery entails. W. Kelly wrote,
We must, however, guard against the notion that “the
mystery” or secret means the gospel. The gospel in itself
does not and never can mean a mystery. It was that which
in its foundations always was before the mind of God’s
people in the form of promise, or of a revelation of grace
not yet accomplished. But nowhere in Scripture is the
gospel called a mystery. It may be connected with the
mystery, but it is not itself a mystery. It was no mystery
that a Savior was to be given; it was the very first
revelation of grace after man became a sinner. The Seed
of the woman was to bruise the serpent’s head. A mystery
is something that was not revealed of old, and which could
not be known otherwise. Again, you have in the prophets
a full declaration that the righteousness of God was near to
come; the plainest possible statement that God was going
to show Himself a Savior-God. So again you have His
making an end of sins and bringing in reconciliation and
everlasting righteousness. All these things were in no
sense the mystery. The mystery means that which was
kept secret, not that which could not be understood, which
is a human notion of mystery; but an unrevealed secret, -a secret not yet divulged in the OT but brought out fully in
the New. What, then, is this mystery? It is, first, that
Christ, instead of taking the kingdom, predicted by the
prophets, should completely disappear from the scene of
this world, and that God should set Him up in heaven at
His own right hand as the Head of all glory, heavenly and
earthly, and that He should give the whole universe into
the hands of Christ to administer the kingdom and
maintain the glory of God the Father in it. This is the first
and most essential part of the mystery, the second, or
Church’s part, being but the consequence of it. Christ’s
universal headship is not the theme spoken of in the OT
You have Him as Son of David, Son of man, Son of God,
the King; but nowhere is the whole universe of God (but
rather the kingdom under the whole heavens) put under
Him. In this headship over all things, Christ will share all
with His bride. Christ will have His Church the partner of
His own unlimited dominion, when that day of glory
dawns upon the world.
Hence, then, as we know, the mystery consists of two
great parts, which we have summed up in Ephesians 5:32:
“This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ
and the church.” Thus the mystery means neither Christ
nor the Church alone, but Christ and the Church united in
heavenly blessedness and dominion over everything that
God has made. Hence, as we saw from chapter 1, when
He was raised from the dead, God set Him at His own
right hand in the heavenly places, far above all
principality, and power, and might, “and put all things
under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all
things to the church.” It is not said, “over the church,”
which would overthrow, not teach, the mystery. He will
be over Israel and over the Gentiles, but nowhere is He
said to reign over the Church. The Church is His body.
I admit it is a figure, but a figure that conveys an intense
degree of intimacy, full of the richest comfort and the
most exalted hope. The saints who are now being called
are to share all things along with Christ in that day of
glory. Hence it becomes of the greatest interest to know
what the nature of the Church is. When did its calling
begin, and what is the character of that calling, what the
responsibilities that flow from it? 125
The following from J. N. Darby might provoke further
thought:
. . . The mystery formed no part of revelation, no subject
of promise. It was hid in God. I have already remarked
that an historical type does not reveal a thing at all till the
antitype comes. It is a simple history. Romans 16:25
does not simply relate to the preaching of the gospel, as
is said. It speaks of a mystery kept secret since the world
began, but not made manifest.
The bringing in of the Gentiles was not an
unrevealed mystery. It is referred to in many scriptures;
but Romans 16:25 speaks of a mystery kept secret since
the world began, and to say that this is what is plainly
taught in the Old Testament scriptures referred to is a
bold defiance of scripture, and that is all. To say that
“Rejoice ye Gentiles with his people,” and “I will set
thee for a light to the Gentiles,” is a matter kept secret
since the world began, is to trifle with the word of God.
The only thing it proves is that the writer is ignorant of
the mystery, now it is revealed, and knows nothing
beyond the passages quoted. The Lord, it is said,
expounded after His resurrection the things concerning
Himself. It is scarcely conceivable that He should have
left out the calling of the Gentiles in His exposition.
Concerning Himself is not concerning the Church, but as
to His own person. The Spirit was to come to guide them
into all the truth. It is expressly stated, that He was
showing them “that Christ must suffer and enter into his
glory” (Luke 24:26, 44-46). A person must be singularly
hard driven up to quote such scripture as this, and in the
face of positive scriptures that it is now revealed by the
Spirit, and had been kept secret since the world began -hid in God. The calling of the Gentiles is not in itself the
formation of the Church. “Rejoice ye Gentiles with his
people” is a different thought. It justifies blessing to the
Gentiles which the Jews would not hear of, “forbidding
to preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved.” But
it treats the Jews as God’s people, whereas in the Church
there is neither Jew nor Gentile at all
. . . No one denies that Christ spoke prophetically of
the Church, though the Church itself was not yet
revealed; but John 10:16 does not even do this.
Gathering individuals into a flock does show the calling
of the Gentiles, which had always been revealed, and
approaches the outward state of things here. But the
125. Lectures on . . . the Ephesians, ch. 3.
doctrine of the Church is not in it at all (that is, of the
body of Christ). All this still only proves (what indeed
makes all plain, as to the whole of these teachers), that
they have not the scriptural doctrine of the Church at all.
John never speaks of the Church -- once of a local church
-- but never of the Church, but of Christ and individuals.
None of the apostles speaks of the Church, nor uses the
word of Christians as a whole, but Paul. It was a dispensation committed to him, as he tells us. Christ prophesies
of it; the Acts relate historically its being founded; but
no one speaks of it as a teacher, or doctrinally, but Paul.
The nearest approach is an allusion in 1 Peter 2 to the
temple: “We are built up a spiritual house.” T. M.
{Mansell?} is forced to admit that this purpose of God in
gathering the saints into one was revealed in a manifested
form and visible unity, never known or seen before. It is
easy to say, never known or seen. When did it exist
before? Where was the head to which the body was to be
united? or did it subsist without any head at all?126
If Rom. 16:25, 26 were simply received into the soul, one
would understand that the OT does not speak of the mystery
of Christ and the Church, which is His body. It expressly
states that “silence has been kept in [the] times of the ages.”
Why not bow to the fact?
But that would mean
acknowledging that the prophets did not prophesy concerning
the church. Types are not prophecies; nor is a type the
uttering of something about the church, nor the uttering of
anything else. “Silence” is the word. The truth of Christ and
the Church “has now been made manifest, and by prophetic
scriptures.” These prophetic Scriptures are New Testament
writings, and in particular, Paul’s writings. These things are
now made manifest by this instrumentality “according to the
commandment of the eternal God.” All has unfolded as it has
because He is sovereign and has commanded it to be thus.
THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH
And what are we to do? Obey. “. . . made known for
obedience of faith to all the nations.” What was made
known? The mystery. Rom. 1:5 speaks of “obedience of
faith among all the nations.” I believe all Christians, sealed
with the Spirit (Eph. 1:13), have participated in what Rom.
1:1-5 refers to concerning “obedience of faith.” But at the
end of Romans we find something further made known for the
“obedience of faith.” Here, the mystery is mentioned. 127 In
Rom. 1 it is a matter of our calling: in Rom. 16:25, 26 it is
a matter of the mystery. There are many who have
“obedience of faith” regarding their calling, but not
“obedience of faith” regarding the mystery. I hardly think
there is “obedience of faith” regarding the mystery when
Scripture says silence was kept concerning it and a Christian
labors to prove that silence was not kept in the OT concerning
126. Collected Writings 10:248, 249.
127. The mystery is not developed in Romans, though something to do
with it is touched on in Rom. 16. It is developed in Col. but fully so in
Eph.
35
it. The force of Rom. 16:25, 26 is resisted because to receive
what it expressly states means that some highly developed
theological systems will collapse.
In direct opposition to the express statements of
Scripture, covenant theology (now joined by retrograde
dispensationalists) says that the mystery can be found in the
O. T. prophets but not to the degree “as it has now been
revealed” (Eph. 3:5). That is the use made of the word as.
So instead of understanding as in the light of Rom. 16:25, 26,
theology attempts to force Rom. 16:25, 26 into conformity
with this false construction put upon as, and in effect turning
the word “silence was kept” (Rom. 16:25, 26) into “talk was
made.” Eph. 3:5 indicates, not a comparison, but a fact, a
contrast.
WHEN, AND FROM WHOM, WAS THE MYSTERY HIDDEN?
The fact that Scripture declares when, and from whom, the
mystery was hidden is consistent with Rom. 16:25, 26, in
affirming silence in OT ages. Col. 1:26 speaks of it also:
. . . the mystery which [has been] hidden from ages and
from generations, but has now been made manifest to his
saints.
This means that the mystery was hidden both from past timeperiods and from persons. I suggest, therefore, that
“obedience of faith” in respect of the mystery will
acknowledge that these Scriptures declare that the OT was
silent about it. Thus the issue of ‘literal’ versus ‘spiritual’
interpretation of the OT prophets to see if they spoke about
the church or not is settled by the express statements of
Scripture itself. (Of course, the use of figures of speech and
symbols is a subject of inquiry, but in no way affects the
issue.) What this means is that the O. T. prophets really
meant Judah, Israel and Jerusalem (not the Church), and thus
they have to be understood that there will be a future for
national Israel. Also, the Church is not the continuator of
Israel, nor the spiritual Israel. And in that day of Israel’s
glory, when she is purged of every rebel (Ezek. 20) and all
Israel shall be saved (Rom. 11:26), Israel will not be part of
the church.
WHERE WAS THE MYSTERY HIDDEN?
We have seen that silence was kept in the times of the ages,
that it was hidden from those ages and the peoples. Where,
then, was it hidden? We should have thought that it was not
hidden in the OT without even God telling us so. But He has
told us where it was hidden.
To me, less than the least of all saints, has this grace been
given, to announce among the nations the glad tidings of
the unsearchable riches of the Christ, and to enlighten all
[with the knowledge of] what is the administration of the
mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has
created all things . . . (Eph. 3:8, 9).
Here we learn that the mystery was “hidden throughout the
ages in God.” It was not hidden in the OT During the O. T.
ages it was hidden in God. Types have nothing to do, really,
with the issue. Moreover, there are no types of a Head in
36
heaven united to a body on earth. Types are history,
incidents or persons, not prophecy or revelation. The issue
is that the OT prophets did not speak of the mystery. There
was “silence” about it; it was hidden from ages and from
generations; it was hidden in God, not in the OT, not in the
prophetic utterances. How is God to say it, if this does not
mean what these texts are stating? Ah, it is written in such a
manner as to call for “the obedience of faith.”
Objections Based
on the Three Texts
What this also means is that the expectation of a literal
kingdom over which Messiah would reign was, and is, a
valid expectation. Spiritualizers vehemently denounce this
expectation, some even claiming it led to the crucifixion.
Lord willing, we shall address the subject of the validity of
that expectation, shared by the remnant that received the
Lord Jesus, though their timing, not the expectation itself,
was wrong.
It is admitted by opponents of a future kingdom for
Israel that if the OT prophets are to be understood literally,
they do indeed prophesy such a kingdom.
ROMANS 16:25, 26
The importance of Rom. 16:25, 26 to this matter is too great
for us to fail to take notice of how those opposers who are
spiritualizers of the prophets attempt to nullify the force of
the statement that “silence has been kept in [the] times of the
ages.” Now, either silence was kept or it was not.
Spiritualizers of the prophets are compelled by their
theological systems to say that silence was not kept.
Consider how the amillennialist John Murray, commenting
on Rom. 16:25, thought he was doing justice to the OT
revelation (meaning that he finds the mystery in the OT):
The clause “now is manifested”, when taken in conjunction
with the emphases on “silence” and “revelation” in verse
25, might create the impression that there had been no
revelation whatsoever of this mystery in the OT Scriptures.
This impression, however, is decisively excluded or
corrected by the words “by the scriptures of the prophets.”
These are the Scriptures to which Paul appeals repeatedly
in this epistle for confirmation of the gospel he preached
(cf. especially in this connection 1:2; 3:21; 11:25,26).
Hence the OT was not silent on this mystery; it was the
medium of revelation concerned with this subject. 128
Another amillennialist, W. Hendriksen, wrote:
It was this mystery that had been hidden for long ages past,
for though the decision had been made in God’s eternal plan
and though even during the old dispensation there had been
foreshadowings of the realization of God’s promise of
salvation for both Gentile and Jew, the period of fulfillment
on any large scale had not been reached until now. But
128. The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1968, pp. 241,
242. Used by permission.
now, the new dispensation having arrived, and the gospel
being proclaimed far and wide, this mystery was being
made manifest, was becoming abundantly clear. It was
being manifested in the fulfillment of prophecy. Think of
Gen. 12:3; 22:18. 129
These Scripture references, and others similarly cited, will be
fulfilled in the millennial reign of Christ. Note well that this
quotation shows that his thought concerning the mystery is
that there would be salvation for both Jew and Gentile.
Well, of course the OT prophesied that fact. But instead of
learning from the three texts we are considering, and
concluding that salvation prophesied for Jew and Gentile is
not the mystery, he rather defined the mystery to be salvation
for Jew and Gentile, and then has to work on the three texts
to force them to conform. And this method of dealing with
God’s word is at the heart of covenant theology. Salvation
for Jew and Gentile is not the same thing as the union of Jew
and Gentile in one body formed by the Spirit sent from the
glorified head in heaven and they being seated in the
heavenlies, in Christ Jesus. (Cp. Eph. 3.)
John Murray virtually (erroneously) equates Paul’s
gospel and the mystery. That appears, at first sight, to help
the system because there are OT Scriptures that speak of
Gentile salvation (it is millennial) and they say that was a
prediction concerning Gentile salvation now. Thus by
virtually equating Paul’s gospel and the mystery, they think
that they can find the mystery in the OT predictions of
Gentile salvation. 130
Note well that John Murray attempts to circumvent the
force of “silence” by stating that “by the scriptures of the
prophets” is meant the OT prophets. And having done that,
he boldly contradicts the text and says, “Hence the OT was
not silent on this mystery; it was the medium of revelation
concerned with this subject.” Such is theology; it can make
black white and white black; it can make “silence” be
talk. 131 If commentators so handle Scripture, of what use is
129. Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Baker Book House: Grand
Rapids, 1981, v. 2, p. 517.
13. Paul’s gospel and the mystery, though connected, are not the same
thing. Additionally Paul’s gospel has aspects that are not the subject of
OT prophecy. The reader may obtain the pamphlet, Paul’s Gospel, from
Present Truth Publishers.
131. Something analogous to treating “silence” this way is necessary also in
the case of Eph. 3:5. Commenting on this, E. K. Simpson, (Commentary on
the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, London: Marshall, Morgan
and Scott (1957), p. 72), boldly says: “Hebrew prophecy had not been silent
respecting this divine secret (cf. Isa. 56:5).” This shows that he does not
understand the mystery. So J. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the
Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, Baker: Grand Rapids (1979 reprint of 1883
ed.), p. 219:
The general sense of the verse is evident. The apostle does not
seem to deny all knowledge of the mystery to the ancient world,
but he only compares their knowledge of it, which at best was a
species of perplexed clairvoyance, with the fuller revelation of its
terms and contents given to modern apostles and prophets.
(continued...)
it to begin by discussing ‘literal’ versus ‘spiritual’
interpretation? But there it stands: “as to which silence was
kept.” John Murray, in effect, says that silence was not kept
about the mystery in the times of the ages. The reader has
come to a decision point. Will you believe that silence was
kept about the mystery in the times of the ages or will you
disbelieve it?
W. Kelly expressly addressed the matter of the prophets:
. . . Carefully remark that the true word and thought is
“prophetic scriptures,” that is, not “the scriptures of the
prophets” or OT, but those of the NT, for we are built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Paul’s
writings, for instance, are prophetic scriptures, and in some
of these the mystery of Christ and the church is fully made
known, not merely touched on as in Romans 12:5.132
Another said:
Accordingly there is no article with “prophetic scriptures,”
as would be correct if “the prophets” had been meant;
whereas the anarthrous form was requisite, if new scriptures
were intended, written by those who had prophetic gift,
whether by apostles who had that gift also or by such as
Mark and Luke, who were prophets inspired to write
though not apostles. 133
A. Marshall’s Interlinear has “through writings prophetic.”
J. N. Darby and W. Kelly read “by prophetic scriptures.”
Daniel P. Fuller, a professor, and former dean of the
faculty at Fuller Theological seminary, in effect disbelieves
this Scripture, choosing this way to make it sound as if it was
the gospel:
[The] gospel [is] . . . according to the revelation of the
mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and
made known through prophetic writings by the command of
the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey
him. 134
Then, of course, he is able to find some OT hints. C. E. B.
Cranfield wrote:
. . . a manifestation which is properly understood in its
true spiritual significance only in light of its OT
foreshadowing and attestation. 135
This assumes that the word “manifestation” refers to the
manifestation of something in the OT But it was not there.
Where was it? Scripture explicitly tells us: it was hid in God
131. (...continued)
As to “hid in God,” he says, “not concealed from the ages, in the sense of
Macknight, but hid from of old.” Thus are the words of God contradicted to
sustain a theological system.
132. Notes on . . . Romans, in loco. So he says in his critique of the
Revised Version in The Bible Treasury 13:352. See also New Series 3:31,
4:127 and 6:12; and The Present Testimony 10:103.
133. The Bible Treasury, New Series 4:128.
134. The Unity of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 421, 1991.
135. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 2:812 (1979).
37
(Eph. 3:9) and now it is manifested. Is that too difficult for
theologians, exegetes and expositors to understand? I doubt
it. Then an agenda is at work.
The covenantizing pretribulationist, Darrell Bock,
having quoted C. E. B. Cranfield, claims:
What is crucial in this passage is the explicit declaration
that the gospel preaching about Jesus Christ and the
nations’ obedience of faith is tied to what the OT
revealed. 136
Here, as in C. E. B. Cranfield’s case, all is lowered to the
gospel. The distinction between the mystery and the gospel,
made in this very text itself, is obliterated. Why should
covenantizing dispensationalists be regarded as
dispensationalists? Merely because they have not yet
jettisoned the truth of the pretribulation rapture?
COLOSSIANS 1:26
If one wishes to circumvent Col. 1:26, one might try the
approach of N. T. Wright:
This is confirmed by Paul’s further definition of ‘the
word of God’ as the mystery that has been kept hidden for
ages and generations but is now disclosed to the saints .
. . (namely) Christ in you , the hope of Glory. 137
The mystery is not the word of God. Scripture says:
Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that
which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh,
for his body, which is the assembly; of which I became
minister, according to the dispensation of God which [is]
given me towards you to complete the word of God, the
mystery which [has been] hidden from ages and from
generations, but has now been made manifest to his saints
. . . (Col. 1:24-26).
It is clear that the mystery involves the body of Christ, which
is the church (v. 24), not merely Christ in you, the hope of
glory. To help see this, read vv. 24 and 26 together,
omitting v. 25:
. . . for his body, which is the assembly . . . the mystery
which [has been] hidden from ages and from generations.
There are other methods by which to contradict Scripture.
For example, L. B. Radford wrote:
The phrase ‘from ages and generations’ means not
‘hidden from the knowledge of men’ but ‘hidden since
the beginning of history’. The emphasis is not on the
withholding of truth from mankind, but on its
contemplation in the mind of the Creator, e. g., Eph. 3:9.
Cp. Rom. 16:25, ‘kept in silence through times eternal’.
The silence was not absolute; glimpses of the mystery
136. “Current Messianic Activity and OT Davidic Promise:
Dispensationalism, Hermeneutics, and NT Fulfillment,” Trinity Journal
15NS (1994), p. 84.
137. Colossians and Ephesians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 91 (1986).
38
were given to psalmist and prophet, e.g., in various
phases and forms of the Messianic hope, cp. Heb. 1:1,
where these partial divine intimations are contrasted with
the full revelation given in Christ. 138
Rom 16:25 is evacuated of its meaning by claiming that it
refers to silence in eternity, whereas the text really says,
“silence has been kept in [the] times of the ages.” Then after
informing his reader that silence was kept in eternity, he says
the silence was not absolute, and shifts from eternity into
time. Next he equates the mystery with the Messianic hope.
Well, with such a handling of Scripture, one may prove any
absurdity. Hidden from ages means that it was hidden from
the time periods between Adam and Paul. Hidden from
generations means that it was hidden from the people that
lived in those time periods. Is that so difficult to understand?
-- unless we have a theological system with which the facts
and statements of Scripture conflict. Heb. 1:1 has nothing to
do with the point at issue, nor does the Messianic hope. The
learned J. B. Lightfoot claimed that:
But the one special ‘mystery’ which absorbs St. Paul’s
thoughts in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians is
the free admission of the Gentiles on equal terms to the
privileges of the covenant. 139
He has set aside the words of God and has imported his
notions about covenant theology into this matter. Now,
observe that by doing this, he is then able to acknowledge
what is really the force of these Scriptures that the mystery
was, as he erroneously defined it, completely unknown:
Not only was this mystery unknown in remote periods of
antiquity, but even in recent generations. It came upon the
world as a surprise. The moment of its revelation was the
moment of its fulfillment. 140
One way or another, covenant theology must be maintained
in the face of the Scriptures which plainly contradict it.
The covenant pretribulationist, R. L. Saucy, joins in
with the more general view of those who espouse covenant
theology by saying:
A mystery may be hidden in the sense that its truth has not
been realized. 141
He retrogradingly speaks like those who hold covenant
theology while pretending to progress. Compare his
comment with that of the amillennialist commentator, W.
Hendriksen:
The mystery of which the apostle is thinking here in Col.
1:26, 27 had been “hidden”; that is, for ages and
generations (lit. “since the ages and the generations”) it
138. The Epistle to the Colossians and the Epistle to Philemon . . ., London:
Methuen, p. 203 (1931).
139. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon . . ., Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, p. 168, reprint of the 1879 ed., n. d.
140. Ibid.
141. In C. A. Blaising and D. L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and
the Church, p. 144.
had not been historically realized. 142
The NT mysteries were hidden in the sense that they were
not manifested.
EPHESIANS 3:5, 9
Some opposers will point to Eph. 3:5:
. . . which in other generations has not been made known
to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to his
holy apostles and prophets in [the power of the] Spirit .
..
It was “not made known to the sons of men” -- no, not even
to Abraham. The mystery was revealed to “his holy apostles
and prophets,” meaning, of course, persons of the church;
which adds weight to the rendering, “and by prophetic
writings” (Rom. 16:26). However, it was Paul who wrote
about the mystery.
Note the comma separating the words “men” and “as.”
W. Kelly translated likewise and with the same comma there.
It shows that these Greek scholars understood the word “as”
to denote a complete contrast: it was not heretofore made
known -- as now is the time when it is made known. It is not
a matter of degree but of absolute contrast.
W. Kelly translated Eph. 3:9 thus:
and to enlighten all as to what [is] the administration of
the mystery which hath been hidden from the ages in God
that created all things.
Concerning the word translated “hidden” in Eph. 3:9, it is
the same word in Col. 1:26, regarding which we saw that the
Lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich says:
hidden, kept secret . . . Col. 1:26. 143
Paul said of it, “which in other generations has not been
made known to the sons of men” (Eph. 3:5). Of course, it
was not made known before the world began, but that is not
the point. It is the period that has elapsed until revealed after
Christ was in glory to be the Head of a body.
Now, the once professor at Westminster Theological
Seminary, OT Allis, whose well-known anti-dispensational
polemic, Prophecy and the Church, which does not even list
Eph. 3:9 in the Scripture index, takes the word “as” in Eph
3:5 to be merely a comparison between the way the mystery
was spoken of in the OT and the way Paul spoke of it.
Stunningly misusing the thrust of Acts 26:22, and referring
to it in a way which labels others “lame and arbitrary” for
not seeing it his way, only serves as a splendid example of
how anti-dispensationalists find references to the mystery in
the OT, in spite of Scripture assuring us that it is not there:
Paul . . . declares emphatically that he has been
preaching nothing which Moses and the prophets had not
142. New Testament Commentary, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon,
Grand Rapids: Baker, in Coalescence, p. 88, 1990.
143. Op. Cit., p. 93.
foretold. What clearer illustration could be found of the
need of giving heed to Paul’s words, “as it has now been
revealed” (Eph. 3:5), when he speaks of the mystery? In
commenting on this passage in Acts, all Darby has to say
is this: “He speaks not of the assembly [the church] -that was a doctrine for instruction, and not a part of his
history” {see Synopsis, in loco}. That a man of Darby’s
mentality should have offered so lame and arbitrary an
explanation is convincing proof that Paul’s words on this
memorable occasion cannot be made to square with the
doctrine of the Pauline mystery Church as it is held by
dispensationalists. 144
We must conclude that his view of the matter is that the
mystery is found all over the OT (Moses and the prophets, he
believes). Thus he empties the Scriptures we are examining
of any real meaning. They may as well not have been in
Scripture at all. This springs from the want of “the
obedience of faith” regarding what God has said in the three
(or more) Scriptures that we are considering. Now note that
Acts 26:23 explains what Paul meant in v. 22:
[namely,] whether Christ should suffer; whether he first,
through resurrection of [the] dead, should announce light
both to the people and to the nations (Acts 26:23).
That, of course, is not the mystery; but OT Allis thinks it is.
Once again we see the erroneous equating of salvation with
the mystery; and then, lo, there it is in the OT – and in spite
of J. N. Darby’s extraordinary mentality, the poor man did
not see what to OT Allis is so plain in Acts 26:22, 23! At
any rate, J. N. Darby was altogether correct in the above
statement. Acts 26:22, 23 does not speak of the church,
which is Christ’s body.
As an example of where this false view of making the
mystery to be the gospel leads, and how far astray the antidispensationalists are, consider the words of V. Poythress,
who teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary:
No dispensationalist has shown a way to maneuver around
the fundamental dilemma: the one way of salvation is
through union with Christ .
He is imagining a necessity to maneuver because of his own
false view about union with Christ. First of all, we confine
the words “union with Christ” to the union of the members
of the body to the Head in heaven. The fact is there never
was union with Christ as members of His body until He took
manhood into glory. We are united to Him in connection
with His risen and glorified humanity, a thing impossible
until He had died, risen and been glorified above. Secondly,
John, who speaks of oneness of life in the Son, directly
contradicts the allegation because the Lord abode alone
before He died on the cross.
144. O.T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, p. 151, 1945.
39
Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it
abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit (John
12:24).
Thus, before His resurrection He abode alone; no one was in
oneness, or in unity, with Him. He Himself taught this fact.
Correctly speaking, we would do well to use the word
“oneness” regarding what John teaches, and keep the word
“union” for what Paul teaches, in order to describe the
differences in what they teach, though the truths are, of
course, complementary. It was, then, consequent upon
Christ’s resurrection that we form, as it were, grains upon
the risen stalk, His resurrection-life being our life, forming
one plant with Him. Before His death, the saints had divine
life, but not in the character of forming one plant with the
risen stalk of wheat, as oneness in life in Him is presented in
John. It is “life in abundance” (John 10:10). In resurrection,
taking the place of the Last Adam, the risen One breathed on
them (John 20:22), bringing them into this new connection
with Him, communicating the Spirit, not as the Pentecostal
gift for union with Him in heaven as Head of the body, but
as the power of life in the Son, as it is presented in John. The
OT saints had life, but neither oneness of life in Him (John),
nor union with the Head in Heaven as members of one
body (Paul).145 Subsequently, as a consequence of His being
there in heavenly glory, the Spirit was sent (John 7:39; Acts
2:32, 33) that those who were waiting might be baptized into
one body (1 Cor. 12:13), uniting them as members to the
Head. The two things were separated in time, God
graciously helping us thus to discern differences and to
understand and appreciate, in our feeble measure, the
immense range of blessings that we have.
Moreover, V. Poythress’ notion that OT Saints had
salvation through union with Christ 146 is vitiated on another
basis. Christ is the eternal Son united to holy manhood.
Thus, while the eternal Son always was such in the Godhead,
the Christ did not exist in OT times, for the incarnation had
not taken place. The talk about “maneuvering” is altogether
inappropriate, to say the least. The “maneuvering” is seen to
be entirely on his part; “maneuvering”around the great and
distinctive facts of Christianity. Such charge
“dispensationalists” with Judaizing but the truth it is such as
145. Even when John is speaking of profession, he uses a plant to represent
the point (John 15), not the figure of the body and the Head. C .C. Ryrie’s
reference to John 10:16 and John 14:20, while rightly refuting
ultradispensationalism, in order to show that the Lord spoke of the mystery
and say that “The Body Church relationship was thus revealed by the Lord
before His death,” is incorrect; Dispensationalism Today, p. 203. Paul alone
speaks of it.
146. We have the blessings we are speaking of (not the new birth) in
connection with Christ’s risen manhood. The idea of OT saints having union
with Christ results, unwittingly, perhaps, in union with deity, since the Son
was not incarnate then. So it follows that the union was with the nonincarnate Son, i.e., with deity. This is the real meaning of V. Poythress’
criticism.
40
themselves who are Judaistic, as is patently inherent in his
very complaint.
All saints in all ages are saved by the grace of God,
which does not mean, or imply, union with Christ for all.
The fact is that the anti-dispensationalists, now being
assisted by those pretending to be progressive
dispensationalists, lower the Christian position to that of a
millennial saint at best; and though that is higher than the
position of an OT saint, it is not proper Christian position
presented in Scripture. But we cannot enlarge on this here.
Above, we noted that O. T. Allis can find the secret
mystery, which was hidden from ages and generations,
hidden in God, in Moses and the prophets. The amillennialist
commentator, W. Hendrickson, illustrates the idea that the
mystery can be found wide-spread in the OT Of course,
what he does is equate the mystery with OT predictions of
the future blessing in which Gentiles would share; and then,
of course, finds this everywhere in the OT Commenting on
Eph. 3:5, he wrote:
The Old Testament writers, in fact, did know about it and
referred to it again and again (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 26:4;
28:14; Ps. 72; 87; Isa. 11:10; 49:6; 54:1-3; 60:1-3;
Hos. 1:10; Amos 9:11ff; Mal. 1:11, to mention only a
few references). 147
“To mention only a few references”! Look how easy it is to
find what Scripture says was hidden from ages and
generations! This is a mystery as to which silence was kept?
or, as the Lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich said: “a secret that
was concealed for long ages”? Is this not, in reality, a
mockery of God’s word, whether intended or not? -- and I
doubt not that no disrespect for God’s word was willfully
intended -- it is the exigency of a false theological system
clouding the mind.
The fact is that OT prophecies of Gentile salvation will
be fulfilled in the millennium, the coming kingdom which so
many deny will come to pass; meanwhile there is an
application of those prophecies at the present time. The
prophecies concerning the death, resurrection and exaltation
to Jehovah’s right hand have been fulfilled.
The
consequences of these things as they affect Christ and His
body were not prophesied. The other prophecies will yet be
fulfilled when God’s present work is completed. The other
quotations from the OT in the NT are for the use of a
principle contained in them, or to illustrate a point, or to
show that Gentiles being saved now is not inconsistent with
147. New Testament Commentary: Galatians and Ephesians, Grand Rapids:
Baker, p. 154, 1990. He remarked that there was something not made clear
in the OT: “. . . the old theocracy would be completely abolished and in its
place would arise a new organism in which the Gentiles and the Jews would
be placed on a footing of perfect equality,” ibid. “Not made clear”? There
is not the slightest hint about it. At any rate, what we see here is that some
of the mystery is found all over the OT and some was not made clear.
the OT Moreover, the fact that the OT prophets spoke of
Gentile blessing of salvation in the coming (millennial)
kingdom helps us understand such a passage as, for example,
Eph. 1:12:
that we should be to [the] praise of his glory who have
pre-trusted in the Christ.
We have “pre-trusted”; i.e., we have trusted in Christ
before the predicted (millennial) time of Gentile salvation.
Christ has died and been raised from among the dead. The
work on which the prophesied millennial salvation for
Gentiles is based is already accomplished and the fulfillment
of the predicted salvation for the Gentiles awaits that day.
Meanwhile, the work being done, God has saved some
Gentiles now (“pre-trusted” before the millennium) and,
additionally, has brought them into the blessed place
occupied by those who are seated in the heavenlies, in Christ
Jesus (Eph. 2:6).
All of this escapes the antidispensationalists.
As another example, let us hear Vern S. Poythress
explain it away:
This passage says that the way in which Gentiles were to
receive blessing, namely by being incorporated into
Christ on an equal basis with Jews (v. 6), was never
made clear in the Old Testament. The claim that the
mystery in Ephesians 3:3-5 was not previously revealed
need mean no more than that. 148
His notion is that the way to accomplish it was (not
unknown, but) not made clear. He does not mean the fact
was not known. And then The Geneva Study Bible, Bringing
the Light of the Reformation to Scripture, omitting comment
on Eph. 3:9, says, concerning v. 5:
3.5 as it has now been revealed The Old Testament’s
silence about Paul’s mystery -- the union of Jews and
Gentiles in the church (v. 6) -- was relative, not absolute.
It was anticipated by the prophets. (Blessed is Egypt My
people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel
My inheritance,” Is. 19:25). If the idea had been
altogether absent from the Old Testament, Paul could not
have said, as he did in Rom. 4, that the Abrahamic
covenant included all who were of like faith with
Abraham, including Gentiles. Paul told Agrippa that his
proclamation of light to both Jews and Gentiles did not go
beyond what had been promised by Moses and the
prophets (Acts 26:22, 23). 149
We will consider this misuse of Acts 26:22, 23 in Part 4. It
is very instructive that the best that is offered is Isa. 25,
which they think is a statement that Jews and Gentiles would
be united in the church! It is good to have these ‘proofs’ of
covenant theology before us so that its true poverty can be
seen. Does it not tell us what the character of the concept
149. Nelson: Nashville, p. 1887 (1995).
concerning union must be? There is no sense of the heavenly
character of the church. The church is nothing but a better
Israel in this scheme.
Contradicting the Scriptures, a leader of the retrograde
dispensationalists, R. L. Saucy, aligns himself with the antidispensationalists in their treatment of the texts we are
considering, saying:
Thus we agree with the non-dispensationalists that Paul’s
teaching concerning the mystery of the church in the union
of Jew and Gentile in Christ is a fulfilment of Old
Testament predictions. 150
In still maintaining a few things that distinguish themselves
from “non-dispensationalists,” the position of the retrograde
dispensationalists (who do not deserve the word
dispensational) is, indeed, as V. Pothress said, “inherently
unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the
long run to create a safe haven theologically between classic
dispensationalism and covenental Premillennialsm.” 151 This
remark assumes that they would hold on to the idea of a
millennial kingdom, while embracing a covenant position.
We have had before us this:
-- as to which silence has been kept in [the] times of the
ages (Rom. 16:26).
-- which [has been] hidden from ages and from generations
(Col. 1:26).
-- which in other generations has not been made known to
the sons of men, as it has now been revealed (Eph. 3:5).
-- hidden throughout the ages in God (Eph. 3:9).
The attempted circumventions of these Scriptures by some of
the above cited writers (numbers of them being amillennial
Calvinists) remind me of a conversation I had with an
Arminian involving the word “impossible to renew again to
repentance” in Heb 6. He coolly stated that “impossible”
meant “nearly impossible.” Apparently, “hidden from ages
and from generations,” and, “hidden throughout the ages in
God,” means to those who find the church prophesied in the
OT that it was “nearly hidden”; and “silence” means
“nearly silent”; and “not previously revealed” “need mean
no more than” “never made clear in the Old Testament.”
It is the blessed path for the Christian to exercise the
obedience of faith, first with respect to the gospel (Rom.
1:1-5), upon which salvation occurs; and also for the
obedience of faith regarding the mystery (Rom 16:25, 26),
which leads to understanding, according to our respective
measures, of God’s glory in Christ, in the heavenly sphere,
where the Christian is (positionally) seated in Christ Jesus
(Eph. 2:6). He will be eternally seated there as he is now,
150. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, p. 163, 1993.
41
but soon he will be there bodily also. His position will never
change:
But to him that is able to do far exceedingly above all
which we ask or think, according to the power which
works in us, to him be the glory in the assembly in Christ
Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen (Eph.
3:20, 21).
If the above cited Scriptures make it clear to you that the
prophets did not speak of the Church; if you see that the
mystery was “hid in God” and not ‘hid’ under terms like
Judah, Israel and Jerusalem; 152 then you will also easily see
what the nature of the kingdom is that was announced by
John the Baptist and our Lord. It is that literal kingdom over
which Messiah would reign, about which the prophets did
indeed prophesy. You should also see that the way of
interpreting the prophets has also been essentially settled.
Since the church is part of the mystery concerning which
silence was kept in the OT, the prophecies of the coming
kingdom are not about the church, and these prophecies are
left to Israel’s future. The church, then, is distinct from
Israel. As distinct from Israel, is the church another earthly
people? -- resulting in two earthly peoples. Not so. The
church is a heavenly people, as is obvious particularly from
Ephesians -- obvious, I say, unless you have a theological
system that clouds the truth about it. So, while there are
anti-dispensationalists that charge that dispensationalism
Judaizes, the truth is that those who make the charge are the
ones who Judaize -- by bringing the church down to being an
earthly people.
152. How would the Jews know it was hid under such terms, if indeed it
was? V. S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987, has a chapter, “Interpretive Viewpoint in Old Testament
Israel”, wherein he seeks to address this matter. One tack he took is to cite
passages of figurative language and state that the readers “would not know
exactly to what extent a metaphorical expression of truth was at work”
(p. 99). If such a tack is used, then it seems to follow that the O.T. readers
would not know whether or not to spiritualize the prophecies; and thus this
reasoning would leave them in a quandary. The Psalms are full of figures.
Did that leave the O.T. reader in a quandary? At any rate, we shall see that
our Lord and the remnant in His time here understood the prophets literally.
We cannot review V. Poythress’ chapter here but just call attention to
his remarks on Ezek. 44-46. He wrote, “Was the Old Testament hearer
obliged to say that the passage must be interpreted in the most obvious way?”
(p. 105). Note well that this admits that the most obvious way to understand
Ezek. 44-46 is literally. Of course, and there was no basis for an Israelite to
understand it otherwise. Subsequently we shall see that the well known
amillennialist, OT Allis, stated that if the prophets are understood literally,
then those prophecies cannot be fulfilled now. This admits that the prophets
can be understood literally. In spite of the efforts that have been made to
explain why an OT Jew should not have expected a literal kingdom, the
question at the beginning of this note has not really been answered.
42
Chapter 1.4: The Heavenly and the Earthly
43
Chapter 1.4
The Heavenly
and the Earthly
The Church, properly speaking, the body of Christ, is not a dispensation, it does not belong to the earth; but there is an order of
things connected with it during its sojourning here below -- an order of things whose existence is linked with the Church’s
responsibility.
(Collected Writings of J. N. Darby 4:328).
Introduction
We have seen that the mystery of Christ and the church is not
a subject of OT prophecy, but was kept secret, hidden from
ages and generations, hidden in God (Rom. 16:25, 26; Col.
1:26; Eph. 3:9). Thus, the work God is presently doing
bears upon God’s ways with, and purpose for Israel. Israel
was the OT people of God (Ex. 3:7, 10; 6:7; 7:4; etc.;
Deut. 7:6; 9:12 with 29; 21:8; 2 Sam. 7:10, 23; Psa.
78:71, etc.). They were declared to be Lo-Ammi (not my
people) in Hos. 1:9, 10. God had taken away government
from that people and gave it to the Gentiles, for the period
depicted by the image of Dan. 2, namely, the times of the
Gentiles (Luke 21:24). When the smiting stone of Dan. 2
(Christ) smites the image, Christ will set up the kingdom on
earth and Israel will again be acknowledged as the people of
God. They were, and will be during the millennium, an
earthly people. Presently, another company of saints is
acknowledged as God’s people; not an earthly people, but a
people called to sit in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph.
2:6).
The Purpose of God
In his 1839 paper, “The Purpose of God,” 153 J. N. Darby
sketched these matters and I will quote several parts.
CHRIST EXALTED IN THE HEAVENS PREPARES
A PLACE FOR THE CHURCH, AND CAN FULFIL
THE PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL -MEANWHILE THE CHURCH IS CALLED.
153. Collected Writings 2:266-277.
The resurrection of the Savior had the double result of
accomplishing the redemption of the church, and of
putting Christ in a place where He could secure the sure
mercies of David (Acts 13:34), that is to say, confirm in
His own name all the promises made to Israel.
Moreover, it was needful also that He should take
possession of the heavenly places, in order to establish
the kingdom of heaven and to fill all things (Eph. 4:10);
154
as well as to associate the church with that glory -new, and yet eternal -- prepared before the foundation of
the world, and yet hidden from the former ages, but the
manifestation of which had been determined according to
the wisdom of God by the rejection of the Messiah by the
Jewish people.
We must here distinguish two things: Christ
preparing a place, a heavenly habitation; and Christ
gathering from among all nations those who are to be His
joint-heirs, calling the bride who is to enter into
possession with Himself. Thus, in John 14:2, 3 the Lord
says, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and
prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive
you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be
also.” In John 17:24: “Father, I will that they also,
whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that
they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me:
for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.”
In Romans 8:29, it is written: “Whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among
many brethren. 155
The work of Christ has provided for blessing in two spheres,
the earthly and the heavenly. Observe the fact that Gentiles
will be blessed on earth, but the center of earthly glory is in
Israel. Also, all of “the just” of the first resurrection, as
154. Compare with John 20:17.
44
well as the raptured saints, are heavenly, but the center of
heavenly glory is Christ and the church.
THE CHURCH AND THE JEWS THE RESPECTIVE
CENTERS OF THE HEAVENLY GLORY AND
OF THE EARTHLY GLORY IN CHRIST.
Two great objects are presented to our contemplation by
the prophecies and testimonies of the Scriptures, which
refer to the millennium: on one hand, the church and its
glory in Christ; on the other, the Jews and the glory
which they are to possess as a nation redeemed by Christ.
It is the heavenly people and the earthly people. The Son
Himself, who is the image and glory of God, will be their
common center, and the sun which will enlighten them
both; and although the place where His glory dwells in
the church be the heavens, where He has “set a tabernacle
for the sun” (Psa. 19:4), the nations will walk in the light
thereof. It will be manifested on the earth, and the earth
will enjoy its blessings. When all is accomplished God
will be all in all. The tabernacle of God will be with men,
not coming down, so to speak, but come down from
heaven.
All these things, and the way in which they will have
their accomplishment, are revealed in detail in the
Scriptures. Although the church and the people of Israel
are each respectively the centers of the heavenly glory and
of the earthly glory, in their connection with Christ, and
although they cast on each other a mutual brightness of
blessedness and joy, yet each of them has a sphere which
is proper to itself, and in which all things are subordinate
to it. With respect to the church, angels, principalities,
and powers, with all that belongs to heaven -- the domain
of its glory; with respect to the people of Israel, the
nations of the earth.156
A few of the details follow:
. . . We have remarked that, when the fall of the Jewish
nation was complete, God transferred the right of
government to the Gentiles; but with this difference, that
this right was separated from the calling and the promise
of God. 157 In the Jews, the two things were united,
namely, the calling of God, and government upon the
earth, which became distinct things from the moment that
Israel was put aside. In Noah and Abraham we had them
distinct; government in the one, calling in the other.
With the Jews these principles were united; but Israel
failed, and ceased thenceforward to be capable of
manifesting the principle of the government of God,
because God in Israel acted in righteousness; and
unrighteous Israel could no longer be the depository of the
power of God. God, then, quitted his terrestrial throne in
157. These matters are discussed in J. N. Darby’s Teaching Regarding
Dispensations, Ages, Administrations and the Two Parentheses, obtainable
from the publisher.
Israel. Notwithstanding this, as to the earthly calling,
Israel continued to be the called people: “for the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance.”
As to
government, God transports it where He will; and it went
to the Gentiles. There are, indeed, the called from among
the nations (namely, the church), but it is for the heavens
they are called. The calling of God for the earth is never
transferred to the nations; it remains with the Jews. If I
want an earthly religion, I ought to be a Jew. From the
instant that the church loses sight of its heavenly calling,
it loses, humanly speaking, all.
What has happened to the nations by their having
had government given over to them? They have become
“beasts”: so the four great monarchies are called. Once
the government is transferred to the Gentiles, they
become the oppressors of the people of God: first, the
Babylonians; secondly, the Medes and Persians; thirdly,
the Greeks; then, the Romans. The fourth monarchy
consummated its crime at the same instant that the Jews
consummated theirs, in being accessory, in the person of
Pontius Pilate, to the will of a rebellious nation, by
killing Him who was at once the Son of God and King of
Israel. Gentile power is in a fallen state, even as the
called people, the Jews, are. Judgment is written upon
power and calling, as in man’s hand.
In the meanwhile, what happens? First, the
salvation of the church. The iniquity of Jacob, the crime
of the nations, the judgment of the world, and that of the
Jews -- all this becomes salvation to the church. It was
accomplished all in the death of Jesus. Secondly, all that
has passed since that stupendous event has no other object
than the gathering together of the children of God. The
Jews, the called people, have become rebellious, and are
driven away from the presence of God; the nations are
become equally rebellious; but government is always
there -- in a state of ruin indeed; but the patience of God
is always there, also waiting until the end. Then what
takes place? The church goes to join the Lord in the
heavenly places. 158
Prophecy applies itself properly to the earth; its object is
not heaven. It was about things that were to happen on
the earth; and the not seeing this has misled the church.
We have thought that we ourselves had within us the
accomplishment of these earthly blessings, whereas we
are called to enjoy heavenly blessings. 159 The privilege
of the church is to have its portion in the heavenly places;
and later blessings will be shed forth upon the earthly
people. The church is something altogether apart -- a
kind of heavenly economy, during the rejection of the
earthly people, who are put aside on account of their sins,
and driven out among the nations, out of the midst of
which nations God chooses a people for the enjoyment of
heavenly glory with Jesus Himself. The Lord, having
been rejected by the Jewish people, is become wholly a
159. {This is more precisely stated in his Letters 1:188: “the church
called for heavenly places.”}
heavenly person. This is the doctrine which we peculiarly
find in the writings of the apostle Paul. It is no longer the
Messiah of the Jews, but a Christ exalted, glorified; and
it is for want of taking hold of this exhilarating truth, that
the church has become so weak. 160
The Church was
Formed at Pentecost
Acts 9 position ultradispensationalists like to point out that
they distinguish between prophecy and the church and that is
why they take a position for the subsequent formation of the
church after Acts 2. In 1848, J. N. Darby wrote:
I distinguish entirely between the church and prophecy. 161
He held to the truth of the formation of the church, the body
of Christ, in Acts 2, upholding the connection with Christ’s
exaltation and consequent sending of the Spirit. 162
The Lord Jesus had said that both He and the Father
would send the Spirit (John 14:26; 16:7; Acts 1:4). This
awaited His glorification in heaven. There could be no
church, the body of Christ until He was in the glory to
become, as man, the Head of that body (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col.
1:18). Thus, He being there, we read in Acts 2:32, 33:
This Jesus has God raised up, whereof all we are
witnesses. Having therefore been exalted by the right
hand of God, and having received of the Father the
promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which
ye behold and hear.
So as the glorified man He received from the Father the
Spirit and the Lord sent the Spirit down for a special
function:
For also in [the power of] one Spirit we have all been baptized
into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or
free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit (1 Cor.
12:13).
the Lord Himself being the baptizer (Matt. 3:11). Thus, the
awaiting saints on earth were united together in one body, to
the Head in heaven.
The Heavenly Calling and
Seated in the Heavenlies
in Christ Jesus
THE HEAVENLY CALLING
161. Letters 1:131.
162. These matters are dealt with in J. N. Darby’s Teaching Regarding
Dispensation, Ages, Administration and the Two Parentheses. Appendix
two refutes the ultradispensationalist view. This book also contains a chart
on Acts.
45
First of all, let us beware of lumping things together,
merging them, regarding them as the same thing because of
a word. W. Kelly sounded this warning:
It surely does not follow that because “city” occurs in
Heb. and in Rev., it necessarily symbolizes the same
truth in both places. We had not yet learnt that because
we read of an “ark” in Gen. 6 and Ex. 2 and in Ex. 25 of
the ark of the covenant, the ark of bulrushes and Noah’s
ark were synonymous terms. . .
In Heb. 11 the word is used to portray that
established and permanent abode in heaven for which the
Old Testament saints looked in contrast with their
temporary and uncertain residence upon earth. Abraham
awaited the time when he should exchange his tent for a
city, and so did the other patriarchs. But in Rev. 21 the
city symbolizes the saints themselves, just as in Rev. 17,
18 another city, Babylon, sets forth corrupt Christendom
163
in the last days. Here then the Bride is the city: 164
while the Jewish saints hoped to be in a city, that is, a
glorious dwelling place on high. But the holy Jerusalem
which John sees seems emblematical rather of a seat of
government than a habitation. 165
And it has always been a great question among
theologians whether the future state of blessedness is to
be on the earth which is to be metamorphosed or
sublimated into a heavenly state, or whether the people of
God in their risen condition are to be in heaven.
Now, I say both are true -- not exactly that the earth
will ever become heaven, but that all the saints that have
suffered from the beginning of the world till the Lord
returns, from Abel downward, will be a heavenly people.
And therefore it is quite a mistake to suppose that because
now the Church is heavenly in its calling, therefore the
saints that are departed will not be heavenly too. It was
true, the heavenly calling was not revealed to them; and
they were not blest, as we are, with every spiritual
blessing in heavenly places in Christ. But they are the
saints of the high places; they are the saints of the
heavenlies too. They shall judge the world; they shall
judge angels, just as truly as we. They will be caught up
to meet the Lord, and we shall be with them, and they
with us, in the presence of God. I do not mean to say
that there will be no distinctions. That, again, is another
mistake; but I maintain that this is the truth of Scripture
most plainly. 166
That brings us more directly to the heavenly calling spoken
of in Hebrews as distinct from being seated in the heavenlies
163. {This is the professing church minus the raptured saints, really.}
164. {Neither city is a literal city. Not to see that, leads to mistakes.
Concerning the holy city Jerusalem, the text distinctly tells us that the
angel showed John the Bride, and that he saw the city (Rev. 21:9, 10).
This city is symbolic.
Also, the heavenly Jerusalem is distinct from the assembly of the first
born ones (Heb. 12:22), though the heavenly Jerusalem is the (figurative)
home of all heavenly saints; it is the Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:26).}
165. Bible Treasury, New Series, vol. 1, p. 126.
166. W. Kelly, Lessons [sic] on the Books of Chronicles, p. 60, 61.
46
in Christ Jesus, in Ephesians. W. Kelly wrote:
THE HEAVENLY CALLING -- Hebrews 3
It is of no small moment to bear in mind that, while the
“heavenly calling,” as a developed system, depends on the
ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, the faith of
Old Testament believers was far in advance of their calling
and circumstances. Thus, the Lord called Abram from his
country and kindred and father’s house to a land that He
would show him; and it was certainly by faith that he
obeyed and went out, not knowing whither he went. But
Heb. 11:9, shows us the further action of faith; for when
he got to the land he sojourned in it as in a strange
country, because a ray of the distant heavenly glory had
dawned on his soul. “He looked for a city which hath
foundations,” &c. Thus he and the other patriarchs died,
as they lived, in faith, not in actual possession.
Nevertheless, such strangership as this neither amounts to
nor implies the “heavenly calling.” Doubtless, the
“heavenly calling” now produces and enjoins strangership
also; but this in no way proves that itself was published
and enjoyed of old.
For the “heavenly calling,” brought before us in
Hebrews, grew out of the position of the Lord as having
appeared, and when He had by himself purged our sins, as
having sat down on the right-hand of the Majesty on high.
Hence the earthly tabernacle and the rest in the land, and
the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices entirely disappear,
for the partakers of the heavenly calling who are addressed
in the epistle. This state of things was not true either of
the fathers or the children of Israel. Their hope was
intimately bound up with the land (no doubt, under the
Messiah and a glorified condition, but still their land and
people as the medium of blessing for all others); but the
“heavenly calling” was not revealed, nor could be till He
came whose rejection led to it and whose redemption and
consequent glorification in heaven became its basis.
Hence Abram had his earthly altar. Hence he sacrificed,
as did his descendants, in due season, of the flock, or the
herd, or the appointed clean birds. Then comes the
worldly sanctuary and its most instructive furniture and
rites, that spoke of better things looming in the future.
Nobody that I know disputes that individual saints saw
beyond these shadows, dimly perhaps but really, to a
coming Savior and a heavenly country. Still the land to
which the patriarchs were called was an earthly land, and
the entire polity of Israel was that of a nation governed
under the eye of a God who displayed himself on earth in
their midst -- in contrast with “the heavenly calling,” of
which not the least it furnished striking types, mutatis
mutandis. Accordingly, in Heb. 11, after having traced
the precious individual traits of the Spirit in the Old
Testament saints, not only from Abraham but from Abel
downwards, we are guarded against the error that would
merge all in one lump, by the incidental statement of the
last verse (See also Heb. 12:23). The elders have not
received the promise; they are waiting till the resurrection
for that. Meanwhile God has provided unforeseen some
better thing for us. He has given us not promise only but
accomplishment in Christ. He has made us worshipers
once purged, having no more conscience of sins. He calls
us boldly to enter into the holiest by a new and living way
consecrated for us. None of these things could be so
predicated of them, and yet these things are but a part of
the heavenly calling. Truly, then, has God provided some
better thing for us, even if we only look at what is now
made known through the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven. It is also true that they without us shall not be
made perfect. They and we shall enter on our respective
portion in resurrection glory at the coming of Christ.
Meanwhile we have no earthly calling, nothing but an
heavenly one.
So far is it from being true that the early
ecclesiastical writers erred by distinguishing too sharply
between the dispensations, that their main characteristic
is Judaizing the Church by denying the real differences.
Jerome did this no less than others, even to the
confounding of Christ’s ministry with Jewish
priesthood.167
SEATED IN THE HEAVENLIES
Another wrote:
The relation in which Christ is presented to His people as
“the Apostle and High Priest of their profession,” in
Hebrews; and Christ as Lord and “Head of His body,
the church,” of which we are the members, in the
Ephesians, might of itself explain what the difference is,
and determine it.
There are, however, other
considerations of interest to which the Scriptures guide
us.
We are looked at in the Hebrews as a collective
number of persons, on their way into the rest that
remaineth, and therefore pilgrims and strangers, in virtue
of our heavenly calling. Another and a very important
point is, that “the time of need” measures the provision
made for our supply by “the throne of grace,” to which
we are exhorted to come boldly, in order “to obtain
mercy and find grace to help” us. Moreover, we have
not an High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling
of our infirmities, but one who is able to succor them that
are tempted, for that “He himself hath suffered, being
tempted.” It is evident, from such provisions as these,
and others of a similar character, that the people are not
contemplated as in Canaan, or in the rest, but on their
way to it: “we who believe are entering into rest;” and
again, “let us labor, therefore, to enter into that rest.”
Further, “the heirs of promise” are encouraged to lay
hold on the hope “set before them, within the veil,
whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,” &c.
In brief, we see in all these instances that Christ is
separated off from His people -- a High Priest passed into
the heavens, and He alone “set down” on the right hand
of the Majesty on High -- though there on behalf of His
people, but a people as yet on the earth, with a heavenly
calling, and on their way to the rest. So as to “the
167. The Christian Annotator, p. 87, 1857.
Forerunner” -- He is within the veil, but alone -- though
He has entered there for us; and “to them that look for
Him shall He appear” a “second time,” &c. What can be
plainer than that the character and provisions made by
God, in the Hebrews, to suit Himself in the Holiest, and
a people whom He has called into His rest, recognize
distance, and infirmities, and a time of need. In short, the
necessities of a people on their way are met by the
resources of the heavens above their heads, and
ministered by the great High Priest of their profession.
In the Ephesians, we are viewed as members of
Christ’s body; of His flesh and of His bones -- which He
nourishes and cherishes. Besides this, the power which
wrought in Christ to place Him where He is, at the right
hand of God, is likewise to usward who believe -- God
who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He
loved us hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath
raised us up together, and made us sit together, in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This epistle is just the
opposite of the Hebrews; for there, as we saw, the Lord
was alone, and set down as a Priest -- or entered in alone
as a Forerunner (and very precious these relations of
Christ are to us); but here, in the Ephesians, He is not
alone, for we are in Him, as the members of His Body,
seated in Him in the heavenlies, because He is the Head of
the Church -- not in an office, which priesthood is, but as
Head of His Body -- not as a forerunner, but we are
quickened together, and raised up together, and seated . .
. Moreover, our infirmities are not the question, but a
direct and different ministration from the Lord, in love to
the members, “till we all come in the unity of the faith and
of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”
There is no corporate body in the Hebrews, but a
collective number of people, with a pilgrimage and the rest
of God in view -- whereas in the Ephesians there is
nothing of this kind, but a “unity” -- “a habitation of God
through the Spirit” -- and “a body” upon the earth -- not
units, tens, hundreds, and thousands (numerically
considered), like the children of Israel, who were “six
hundred thousand, and a thousand seven hundred and
thirty,” when numbered on the plains of Moab, before
their entrance into Canaan -- on their way into rest -- but
“one new man.”
The saints of God, in this dispensation, stand in the
relation of God of a people on earth, “begotten again unto
a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead, to an inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that
fadeth not away,” &c., of which Peter’s epistles give the
description. Till we enter into this inheritance by our own
resurrection, or translation, we are addressed as “pilgrims
and strangers,” and exhorted “to pass the time of our
sojourning here in fear,” calling upon the Father, &c.
But the saints of God have another relation to Christ,
as “the beginning, the first-born from the dead,” and
“Head of the body, the church” -- and in which relation
we are not on our way, but seated in the heavenly places
in Christ; for as members of Christ, and of His Body, we
should be denying our relation to both, if we do not allow
47
that we are seated, as our Head, and in our Head. A
Christian can therefore say in his Church relation that he
is quickened, raised up, and seated in the heavenlies in
Christ -- because he is a member of His body -- whereas,
if viewed in another relation (as in the Hebrews) he is one
of the holy brethren, and a partaker of the heavenly
calling -- moreover called to consider Christ, not as Head
of the Body, but in an office, as the Apostle and High
Priest of His profession -- who appears in the presence of
God for us, and lives to make intercession for us. Does
the Lord do this for the Church, the Body, of which He is
the Head? On the contrary, one of the prayers in the
Ephesians is, that the members “may know the love of
Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled
with all the fulness of God.” How different this love to
the intercession of the great High Priest -- though that is
the fruit of grace, too.
A Christian is therefore one of the holy brethren,
with a heavenly calling, on his way into the rest that
remaineth, with a promise of entering in, but in the
meanwhile obtaining mercy, and finding from the throne
of grace in the heavens, the help that is suited for the time
of need, or the pilgrimage journey. A Christian is also
“joined to the Lord,” and “one Spirit;” and as such
“baptized (with all his fellow-members) by one Spirit into
one body;” and “made to drink into one Spirit” -- and
this body is Christ. To introduce “a calling,” or a
“pilgrimage,” or “intercession,” where all is vital, and
existing in the unity of a Body, would be to disturb these
relations with Christ, and put all into distance again, and
reduce the Body to mere units, tens, hundreds, and
thousands. A Christian, as a Church-man, is already
raised up, and seated in heavenly places.
I trust these remarks will make plain the difference
between the “heavenly calling” of the Hebrews , and
“seated in heavenly places” in the Ephesians. I trust also
that we shall be able to hold our duplex character of
“holy brethren,” on our way to the rest, and laboring to
enter in -- yet quietly take our places, as knowing no
distance, nor difference in this respect, between Christ as
Head of the Body, and ourselves as of His flesh, and of
His bones, seated with Him in the heavenlies! It is thus
we are contemplated and addressed in these two epistles,
and faith accepts it in communion with the Father and the
Son, through the Holy Ghost. 168
CHRIST’S PLACE IS OUR PLACE
The revelation of all that was entailed in the coming of the
Spirit, from the man in the glory, however, awaited God’s
time through the apostle Paul. His appointment to the
apostolic position came from that man as glorified above,
following the rejection of Stephen’s testimony to His
presence there. Paul is the apostle appointed to unfold the
truths of the heavenlies (Ephesians) and tell us that we are
seated in the heavenlies, in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6). This
168. The refernce has escaped me.
48
tells us our position before God.169 We are not seated in
earthly places, as the redeemed nation of Israel (Ezek. 20:3338; Rom. 11:26; Isa. 60:21) will be when Christ reigns
before His ancients in glory (Isa. 24:23).
Now, all saints who ever lived, or will live, are born
again and children of God (Rom. 9:7, 8; John 11:52). This
we have in common with all saints. All saints who have died
up to the millennium are part of the first resurrection (Rev.
20:5), part of the resurrection of the just (Luke 14:14). All,
in common, are saints, and are just (cp. Heb. 11:40). But
while there are things that are common to all saints, those
seated in the heavenlies, in Christ Jesus, have a distinct and
heavenly place. The recognition of this distinction is meant
to be conveyed by referring to Israel as an earthly people and
the church as a heavenly people.
Let us pause to observe that it does not follow that OT
saints who are in heaven are therefore seated in the
heavenlies, in Christ Jesus. They have their blessedness, but
it can never rise to the unique place that “members of
Christ” (1 Cor. 6:15) have, and will have eternally (Eph.
3:21; Rev. 21:1-3).
As part of the blessedness of saints in heaven who are
not part of the church, the bride, we read:
Blessed [are] they who are called to the supper of the
marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).
But they are not part of the bride -- who is also figured by a
city (Rev. 21:9, 10) -- still distinct in the eternal state (Rev.
21:1-3; cp. Eph. 3:21).
make them morally like Him. I will put upon them all that
is possible for me to do, except deity itself. I will bless them
with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Him (Eph.
1:3). I will have them holy and blameless before Me in love
(Eph. 1:4). Mighty as was the power put forth in creation,
that surpassing greatness of My power that I displayed in
raising My Beloved from among the dead, setting Him
down at My right hand in the heavenlies, above all, and put
all under My Beloved’s feet (Eph. 1:19-22); that surpassing
power, I say, I will extend to those whom I will accept in My
Beloved (Eph. 1:19). And I will make them be “his body,
the fulness of him who fills all in all (Eph. 1:23). And as I
have displayed the surpassing greatness of My power
towards them (Eph 1:19), I intend to show in those whom I
have chosen to be favored in my Beloved, in the coming
ages, the surpassing riches of my grace in kindness towards
them, in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:7).
But to him that is able to do far exceedingly above all
which we ask or think, according to the power which
works in us, to him be glory in the assembly in Christ
Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen
(Eph. 3:20, 21).
There is, then, an earthly people (by calling) and a people
sitting in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6). The
denial of this lowers the heavenly people to an earthly
people. This necessarily Judaizes. And this is what the new,
so-called “Progressive Dispensationalism is about.”
The chart below summarizes graphically what we have
been considering, as well as the remainder of this chapter.
All of these arrangements are appointments of God for
glorifying Himself in Christ, both in the earthly and in the
heavenly spheres. These several glories must neither be
merged nor separated. God has one purpose -- to glorify
Himself in Christ; but this is manifested in two spheres, the
earthly and the heavenly. And as in the earthly, both Israel
and the nations are blessed, with the highest blessing on earth
for Israel (during the millennial kingdom); so in heaven shall
all saints be blessed, but the church has the highest blessing.
Indeed, it is so high a blessedness that it involves our being
accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6); i.e., God has brought us
into His favor in the Beloved. He has done this after our
Beloved was received up in glory (1 Tim. 3:16) and Himself
seated there above all heavens that He might fill all things
(Eph. 4:10). He fills the infinite heart of God with all the
blessedness of His Person and His work of glorifying the
Father. And the Father says, I must have other sons in the
glory who are like my Beloved. I want them to have
fellowship with Me in My appreciation of Him. And I will
169. It is so obvious that this is not a physical seating that it is a wonder that
it is necessary to point out that it has no bearing on the physical movements
of the saints after the rapture. It is a spiritual position before God that never
will change no matter where those thus seated are.
Only One People of God?
ISRAEL IS LO-AMMI
In the OT the designation “people of God” is specially used
to describe Israel in relationship to God. Seth and Noah, for
example, were not included in the term, my people. A check
on this with the use of a concordance will confirm the fact.
It is a false theological construct to range all saints under the
designation, my people. At the time of the Babylonian
captivity Israel became Lo-ammi (not my people) (Hos. 1:9).
In the following centuries there were, of course, saints, but
they were not called “my people.” The mere presence of
believers in the midst of those declared Lo-ammi did not
undo or negate the divine disowning of that people of God.
The presence of believers among the unbelieving nation is
not what constituted them the people of God -- else other
nations among whom there were believers would likewise be
the people of God. There is no such thing in Scripture as
designating all saints from Adam on by the term “my
people.” In millennial times Israel will again be “my
people” (Hos. 2:23).
A chapter is devoted to the state of Israel as Lo-ammi in
Part 8.
1 PETER 2:9
In the time during which the church is called, Peter,
addressing the elect saints of the Jewish dispersion (1 Peter
1:1), tells them that are “a people for a possession,” as J. N.
Darby translated (1 Peter 2:9). Those addressed were
believing Jews while the nation has rejected the Messiah.
We noted above that after the nation was declared Lo-ammi,
the believers were not designated as “my people.” However,
consequent on the work, resurrection, glorification of Christ
and the baptism in the power of one Spirit, into one body, of
49
the waiting believers, a new entity was formed: the body of
Christ. The Jewish believers thus became members of
Christ’s body. And they became God’s people, “a people for
a possession.” W. Kelly remarked:
“Which in time past were not a people, but are now the
people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now
have obtained mercy.” Here again we have a scripture of
the Old Testament applied; and this has often been, and
still is to this day, exceedingly misunderstood; as if the
persons here spoken of must be Gentiles because they are
called the strangers of the dispersion. It means Jews, and
none but Jews, who believe in the Lord Jesus. What he
refers to is the loss of their title to be the people of God,
which Israel sustained at the time of the Babylonish
captivity. They then ceased to be manifestly God’s
people. Accordingly their land became the possession of
the Gentiles; and so it has gone on to this day. As we
know, from that day to this there has never been a real
recovery, but only the return of a remnant for special
purposes for a season. The times of the Gentiles are still
in course of accomplishment. They are not yet finished;
and they must be punctually fulfilled. Hence it is evident
that, as long as the times of the Gentiles proceed, the
Jews cannot regain their ancient title, nor become the real
owners of Emmanuel’s land. Indeed, it is too plain a fact
for any one to dispute. All this time they are not a
people; they are dependent on the will of their Gentile
masters. But even now grace gives the believer (here
believing Jews) to enter that place; we are now God’s
people. We do not wait for times and seasons. Israel
must wait; but we do not.
This is just the difference between the Christian and
the Jew. The Christian does not belong to the world, and
consequently is not bound by accidents of time. He has
everlasting life now, and is a heavenly person even while
upon the earth. This is Christianity. Thus he says to the
Jews addressed that they were not a people (that is, in the
50
days of their unbelief), but are now. So far was their
believing in Christ from taking them out of the people, it
is then alone that they became a people. They “were not
a people, but now are the people of God;” they “had not
obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” It is a
quotation from Hosea 2.
And this is exceedingly interesting, because if the
prophet be compared, it will be seen to illustrate what has
been remarked before -- the difference between the present
accomplishment made good in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost, and the future fulfilment of the prophecies. If
persons take the actual application as the fulfilment of the
prophecies, it in fact not only nullifies the future of
scripture, but destroys the beauty and point of the present;
for what the apostle intimates is, that they had obtained
mercy now, though none were yet sown in the earth.
These Christian Jews were not sown in the earth. The
earth will be sown with the seed of God when the Jewish
nation, as such, obtains mercy. They will be the greatest
people on the face of the earth, and all the Gentiles shall
own it. They will have everything at their command, and
worthily use all for God. Not only are they to be set
publicly at the head of the nations, but God himself will
link His own glory from above with them as His earthly
people here below, and nothing but peace, righteousness,
and plenty will be found all over the earth in that day of
glory. Such will be “that day,” and of that day Hosea
prophesies. You can easily judge whether that day is
come now. It is only a theologian who finds a difficulty.
His traditions wrap him up in fog.170
J. N. Darby has some excellent observations about this
Scripture regarding the relationship of the blessing Peter
spoke of and the heavenly character of blessing, thus bearing
on our subject of two peoples of God:
It does not say that they were appointed to sin nor to
condemnation, but these unbelieving and disobedient
sinners, the Jewish race -- long rebellious, and continually
exalting themselves against God -- were destined to find in
the Lord of grace Himself a rock of offence; and to
stumble and fall upon that which was to faith the precious
stone of salvation. It was to this particular fall that their
unbelief was destined.
Believers, on the contrary, entered into the enjoyment
of the promises made to Israel, and that in the most
excellent way. Grace -- and the very faithfulness of God
-- had brought the fulfilment of the promise in the Person
of Jesus, the minister of the circumcision for the truth of
God to fulfil the promises made to the fathers. And,
although the nation had rejected Him, God would not
deprive of the blessings those who -- in spite of all this
difficulty to faith and to the heart -- had submitted to the
obedience of faith, and attached themselves to Him who
was the despised of the nation. They could not have the
blessing of Israel with the nation on earth, because the
nation had rejected Him; but they were brought fully into
170. Lectures Introductory to the Study of Acts, the Catholic Epistles and the
Revelation, London: Broom, pp. 254-256 (1870).
the relationship with God of a people accepted of Him.
The heavenly character which the blessing now assumed
did not destroy their acceptance according to the promise;
only they entered into it according to grace. For the
nation, as a nation, had lost it; not only long ago by
disobedience, but now by rejecting Him who came in
grace to impart to them the effect of the promise.
The apostle, therefore, applies the character of “holy
nation” to the elect remnant, investing them in the main
with the titles bestowed in Exodus 19 on condition of
obedience, but here in connection with the Messiah, their
enjoyment of these titles being founded on His obedience
and rights acquired by their faith in Him.
But, the privileges of the believing remnant being
founded on the Messiah, the apostle goes farther, and
applies to them the declarations of Hosea, which relate to
Israel and Judah when re-established in the fulness of
blessing in the last days, enjoying those relationships with
God into which grace will bring them at that time.
“Ye are,” he says, “a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, a purchased people.” These are almost the
words of Exodus 19. He goes on: “Which in time past
were not a people, but are now the people of God; who
formerly had not obtained mercy, but have now obtained
it.” These are the words of Hosea 2. This sets before
us, in the most interesting way, the principle on which
the blessing is founded. In Exodus the people were to
have this blessing if they exactly obeyed the voice of
God. But Israel had not obeyed, had been rebellious and
stiff-necked, had gone after strange gods, and rejected the
testimony of the Spirit; yet, after their unfaithfulness,
God Himself has laid in Zion a Stone, a chief cornerstone, and whosoever believed in Him should not be
confounded. It is grace that, when Israel had failed in
every respect, and on the ground of obedience had lost
everything, God should bestow on them by Jesus,
through grace, that which was promised them at first on
condition of obedience. In this way all was secured to
them.
The question of obedience was settled -- on Israel’s
disobedience -- by grace, and by the obedience of Christ,
the foundation laid by God in Zion. But this principle of
grace abounding over sin -- by which is shown the
inability of disobedience to frustrate the purposes of God,
for this grace came after the completion of disobedience
-- this principle, so glorious and so comforting to the
convinced sinner, is confirmed in a striking way by the
quotation from Hosea. In this passage from the prophet,
Israel is presented, not merely as guilty, but as having
already undergone judgment. God had declared that He
would no more have mercy (with regard to His patience
toward the ten tribes); and that Israel was no longer His
people (in His judgment on unfaithful Judah). But
afterwards, when the judgment had been executed, He
returns to His irrevocable purposes of grace, and allures
Israel as a forsaken wife, and gives her the valley of
Achor -- the valley of trouble, in which Achan was
stoned, the first judgment on unfaithful Israel after their
entrance into the promised land -- for a door of hope.
51
For judgment is changed into grace, and God begins all
afresh upon a new principle. It was as though Israel had
again come up out of Egypt, but upon an entirely new
principle. He betroths her to Him for ever, in
righteousness, in judgment, in grace, in mercy, and all is
blessing. Then He calls her “Ruhama,” or, “the object of
mercy”; and “Ammi,” “my people.”
Christ Jesus. The notion is absurd. Moreover, no Scripture
says that they shall ever be so seated.
These, then, are the expressions which the apostle
uses, applying them to the remnant who believed in Jesus,
the stumbling-stone to the nation, but the chief cornerstone from God to the believer. Thus the condition is
taken away, and instead of a condition we have blessing
after disobedience, and after judgment the full and assured
grace of God, founded (in its application to believers) on
the Person, the obedience, and the work of Christ. 171
In the final sense it is perhaps best to say that “the people
of God” is one people, since all will be related to him
through the same covenant salvation. 172
ACTS 15:14
While there is a remnant of grace of Israelites in the church,
it is chiefly and characteristically composed of Gentile
believers. Peter related at Jerusalem “how God first visited
to take out of [the] nations a people for his name” (Acts
15:14). We shall, if God wills, treat this passage more fully
when we consider the Acts. Let us but observe here that
James did not say that Amos 9:11, 12 was being fulfilled or
that the church is the tabernacle of David. He cited for the
fact that there will be such a thing as God owning Gentiles
(millennial) apart from circumcision, and that His ways with
Gentiles now cannot, therefore, be objected to. God is not
inconsistent.
THE CROSS PROVIDES FOR
ISRAEL TO BE THE PEOPLE OF GOD
God’s calling a people now out of all nations does not set
aside the future re-establishment of Israel as the people of
God for the earth. The work of Christ on the cross made
provision for the nation of Israel, as such (John 11:52, 53)
providing the righteous basis for the salvation of them (Rom.
11:26), the rebels having been purged (Ezek. 20); and they
will be brought into the bond of the covenant (Ezek. 20:37),
even the new covenant (Heb. 8:8-13) -- and meanwhile we
minister the truths of it, as well as the Mediator of it (2 Cor.
3:6), though under no covenant ourselves, for we stand on
far higher ground before God. We are pronounced to be
heavenly (1 Cor. 15:48). This must necessarily be so
because of the peculiar and special place we have in that
Heavenly One, before the Father, taken into favor in the
Beloved (Eph. 1). And while OT saints will be in the
general heavenly company, none were said to be heavenly
while on earth. But more; we saints are sitting down
together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6). This is
our position, outside and above this creation. It is a position
that will never, ever, change -- ours eternally, and
distinguishes us from all other saints in the heavenly sphere.
OT saints could not have been seated in the heavenlies in
171. Synopsis, in loco.
THE SLIDE TOWARDS COVENANTISM DISGUISED
AS “PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM”
R. L. Saucy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot
Theological Seminary, and a leader in this new view, said:
In order to have the expression “the people of God” include
Gentiles, he begins the retrograde effort 173 with reference to
Zech. 2:11, which reads in J. N. Darby:
And many nations shall join themselves to Jehovah in that
day, and shall be unto me for a people; and I will dwell
in the midst of thee. . . .
Then, citing Isa. 19:24, and trying to make it appear that
“the concept of ‘God’s people’” is extended to the Gentile
nations in the Old Testament and then follows his desired
conclusion, “Thus, even before the New Testament was
written, the concept of “the people of God” embraced both
Israel and those outside of that nation” (p. 189). Observe
how, right in the teeth of Hos. 1:9 and 2:23, he puts forth his
attempt to water down the expression, his ultimate goal being
to lower the church into ‘the one people of God.’
After God declared Israel Lo-Ammi (not-my-people; see
Appendix 1), does he think the O.T. Gentiles, outside Israel,
allegedly embraced by the concept of “the people of God,”
still remained “the people of God”?
Thinking he has proven his point of a dual application
of “the people of God” in the OT, he proceeds to the NT;
and, not at all surprisingly, finds it in the Gospels (?) and
elsewhere. Referring to Rom. 11:1, 2 he says:
The continued use of this designation for the natural
people of Israel during the church age is seen in Paul’s
description of Israelites as “his [God’s] people” (Rom.
11:1-2). 174
And does that mean that when Paul wrote this Scripture,
Israel was “the people of God” as they were before
pronounced Lo-Ammi? Of course not; they were no longer
that people of God. So the phrase “his people” in Rom. 11
shows that the word people may be used to refer to those
who are not a distinctive people as Israel was before the LoAmmi period. And so may the word “people” be used of
Gentiles, in the millennium (Zech. 2:11). But when Israel is
declared to be Ammi (my people) in that day, the distinction
will be maintained. But all this is useless to show that there
is no such thing as a distinctive people sitting in heavenly
places in Christ Jesus, as there was an ancient called people
172. The reference has escaped me.
173. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 188.
174. The reference has escaped me.
52
for the earth. We are not interested in word manipulations
but rather seek God’s mind concerning things that differ.
Maintain the distinction and you will be helped not to move
to covenant theology, as the covenant dispensationalists are
doing. You will avoid notions like one people of God related
to God “through the same covenant salvation.”
All saints are, and will be, related to God by Christ’s
work on the cross. So is it with, say, Abel and Enoch, all
are saved by grace. But that did not make Abel and Enoch
part of the OT people of God.175 What is going on with the
covanantizing dispensationalists is similar to the antidispensationalist making Israel the OT church. What then
about Abel and Enoch? Well, somehow they have to
incorporate them also. Theological error requires it. All is
merged in the idea of the ‘unity of the redeemed.’ Thus, the
distinctions made in God’s Word are blotted out.
Progressive Dispensationalism is engaged in this also as seen
in the assertion of ‘one people of God.’ It is a movement
into covenantism.
This misnamed Progressive Dispensationalism rejects the
earthly/heavenly distinction. R. L. Saucy, wrote:
The earlier dispensational teaching that divided the people
of God into an earthly and heavenly people (i.e., the
church and Israel), with fundamentally no continuity in the
plan of God on the historical plain, must be rejected. 176
God has one purpose, to glorify Himself in Christ,
manifested in two spheres, the earthly and the heavenly, all
to be headed up in Christ in the millennium (Eph. 1:10). As
to all saints, past, present and future, all are born of God, all
are saints, all are children of God, all are just men.
Continuity lies in those things while there is discontinuity
altogether between the called people for the earth and the
people sitting in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus.
We are related to Christ as members of His body. OT
saints were not. All saints in all ages are saved by grace, but
that does not make them members of Christ or make them
taken into favor in the Beloved (Eph. 1), nor does it make
them all “the (one) people of God.” The writer continued:
But the affirmation of the fundamental unity in a relation
to God through Christ does not eliminate the
distinctiveness of Israel as a special nation. . . 177
say, than “covenant salvation,” which is a figment of the
theological mind as so used. We shall notice some points
about this leveling system later. But even where something
new for the present is noticed, it often contains error. For
example, the above writer speaks of:
. . . the saving work of Christ at the cross which brought
both Jew and Gentile into a new union with God and
therefore with each other. 178
We do not enter into “union with God.” We are united to
Christ in one body (Col. 1:18; Eph. 4:15, 16) by the Spirit
sent down when He was in glory (John 7:38, 39; Acts 2:32,
33; 1 Cor. 12:13). We participate in this blessedness in
connection with His risen manhood (John 12:24; 20:22).
Moreover, persons before Abraham were not in the
olive tree of Rom. 11; nor will believing Gentiles in the
millennium be in it, since the Gentile branches will be broken
out. Such things as the olive tree and the seed of Abraham
(the saints before Abraham were not the seed of Abraham in
any sense) do not show that all saints of all ages form one
people of God, except in the mind of those who have an
agenda to prove it. The subject of the seed of Abraham is
considered in Part 5. Also, the olive tree and the
heavenly/earthly distinction is examined in Chapter 8.4.
Conclusion
What we have been reviewing is not part of the subject of OT
prophecy. The prophets did not speak about the church. It
is only by contradicting the express statements of Scripture
and then by a process of spiritual alchemy operating on the
OT prophecies that the church is read into them.
So the preaching of John the Baptist regarding the
kingdom was not about the church, nor was such preaching
by our Lord. Moreover, the remnant that was waiting for
the consolation of Israel were awaiting the kingdom
prophesied by the OT prophets. We will now examine the
Jewish expectation, the expectation of the godly remnant (and
confirmed by our Lord) and then the postponement of the
kingdom to a future time.
The fact that all saints are related to God by new birth, by
salvation by grace, based on the work of Christ, does not set
aside the distinction between the called, earthly people and
the people sitting in the heavenlies in Christ. These
distinctions depend on other things than salvation; I do not
175. Of course, they were not in the Olive Tree of Rom. 11, either, which
began with Abraham.
176. “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in John S. Feinberg,
ed., Continuity and Discontinuity, Perspectives on the Relationship Between
the Old and New Testaments, Wheaton: Crossway, p. 23, 1988.
177. Ibid.
178. Ibid., p. 254.
Addendum:
The Coming Seventieth
Week of Dan. 9
There are six passages which name the coming period of
tribulation, though many other passages speak of events
occurring therein. In 1 Cor. 10:32 we see that God sees
mankind as presently composed of three groups which are
listed below and to which the six passages apply.
Jew
Gentile
Church
Jer. 30:7
Rev. 7:14 (cp.
Matt. 25:31ff)
Rev. 3:10
Dan. 12:1-3
53
Rev. 3:10 says “kept out of the hour of trial.” The church
will not be in the hour, the time, of it, having been removed
at the pretribulation rapture. If it be objected that the
passage has no such application because it applied in the past
to the Philadelphian believers, I reply that that trivializes
Scripture. Because, what it would then mean is that there
was some hour of trial that they were kept out of by
gradually dying off.
Matt. 24:21
Mark 13:19
54
55
Part 2
The
Expected
Kingdom
The kingdom that the Jews expected was a literal kingdom
on earth, under Messiah. They had no basis upon which to
expect otherwise if they believed the words of the prophets.
But while that understanding of the prophets was correct, it
left out a part of what the prophets had said; namely, that
the Messiah would first suffer before the glory (Luke 24:25,
26).
John the Baptist and our Lord proclaimed that Kingdom
and the godly remnant that accepted Christ expected that
Kingdom. The offer of the Kingdom took, however, a form
determined by God to bring out the state of the people. It
was presented as embodied in the Person of the meek and
lowly One. The people would have Him be king on the
basis of His power to feed them (John 6) but that expressed
and exposed their state of belly-mindedness, which is not the
basis for the Kingdom. That ended in His death.
It was the purpose of God that Christ die on the cross,
giving His life a ransom for many, and provide the basis for
all the display of His glory. The result was, as divinely,
sovereignly determined, that the Kingdom was postponed,
or delayed; and meanwhile the great secret hidden in Him
be unfolded. Thus, meanwhile, a heavenly people was to be
formed to be at the center with His Son of the heavenly
glory.
When that work is completed, then God will again take
up His ways in government in the earth for the display of
His glory in Christ in the earthly sphere wherein an earthly
people (Israel) will be at the center of it.
56
Part 2: The Expected Kingdom
57
Chapter 2.1
What Should
the Jews Have Expected?
Introduction
The word “millennium” refers to the 1000-year reign of
Christ. This reign is often spoken of in the prophets.
Revelation 20 tells us its duration -- 1000 years.
Premillennialists believe that Christ will come before the
1000 years.
The 1000-year reign will be preceded by a period a little
longer than seven years. A premillennialist who believes
Christ will come for us at the end of the seven-year period
(involving the great tribulation) is called a posttribulationist.
A premillennialist who believes Christ’s coming is one
coming but in two aspects (a pretribulation rapture and an
appearance in glory after the tribulation) is generally called
a pretribulationist 1 and a dispensationalist.
There are postmillennialists. They believe a golden age
will be brought in by the preaching of the gospel and
Christianity permeating the world until it is more or less
Christianized. They hold that the millennium need not be a
literal 1000 years.
Then there are amillennialists, those who believe the
1000 years is a symbolic number referring to the present
period from the cross until Christ comes and introduces the
eternal state.
These last two groups in particular deny a future,
distinct, political kingdom of which national Israel is the
center and over which Christ will reign. This necessitates a
denial that John the Baptist and our Lord announced the
kingdom as those who hold dispensational truth (in some
measure) understand this announcement. By ‘spiritual’
interpretation they alchemize the prophetic declarations in the
O. T. into prophecies concerning the church -- hence it
follows, not only for amillennialists but for postmillennialists
also, that the announcement of the kingdom by John and our
Lord had to be the announcement of a spiritual kingdom, not
a literal one. This literal kingdom we shall call, as others
1. There are other variations, such as partial rapturists and mid-tribulation
rapturists.
have done, a temporal kingdom; though as we shall see
elsewhere those composing the nation of Israel under
Messiah’s reign will all be saved (Rom 11:26, etc.) and this
will entail much spiritual blessing for Israel. Thus the
nation, which will experience a national adoption under the
new covenant (Rom. 9:3-5), will also enjoy spiritual
blessings of the new covenant (Heb. 8:8-13).
A Jew Had to Expect
a Temporal Kingdom
To speak of the “postponement” of the kingdom, implies that
the temporal kingdom was announced by John and our Lord
in accordance with the prophecies of the O. T., literally
understood. This view of the matter is consistent with what
we have seen in Rom. 16:25, 26, Col. 1:26, and Eph. 3:9.
Both John the baptist and our Lord announced the kingdom
predicted by the prophets.
It is obvious that the prophets used the terms Judah,
Israel, Jerusalem, etc.; and it is alleged that this means the
church. How was a Jewish reader of the prophets supposed
to know that?
The well-known amillennialist, O. T. Allis, in his
polemic against dispensational truth, stated this:
The Old Testament prophecies if literally interpreted
cannot be regarded as having been fulfilled or as being
capable of fulfillment in this present age. 2 —
What here concerns us is the phrase “thy people.” From
the Old Testament standpoint this passage like Jeremiah’s
[Jer. 30:7] might be regarded as referring exclusively to
Israel. But we have seen that the New Testament gives
a larger meaning and scope to Old Testament prophecies
which seem to be restricted to Israel . . . . 3 —
So the OT prophecies could, as a matter of fact, be “literally
interpreted” and they “seem to be resticted to Israel.” The
2. Prophecy and the Church, p. 238.
3. Ibid., p. 209.
58
godly Jew really had no other choice. It is the New
Testament, he alleges, gives a larger meaning and scope.
Old Testament prophecies might be regarded as referring
exclusively to Israel. And how was the godly Jew to know
that it only seems that way and there was going to be a New
Testament that would give a “larger meaning and scope”?
 If the meaning and scope were enlarged, what was
the meaning and scope in the Old Testament before
it was enlarged in the New Testament?
 What was Daniel to understand by “thy people”
(Dan. 9:24) before this term was allegedly enlarged?
This raises the question -- was God deceiving Daniel and the
Jews? So, after all, God did tell the Old Testament Jews that
there would be a literal kingdom, and the expectation of it
was right.
V. S. Poythress, in seeking to show that a Jew did not
need to take the prophets literally, cited passages of
figurative language and stated that the readers “would not
know exactly to what extent a metaphorical expression of
truth was at work.” 4 Concerning Ezek. 44-46, he wrote:
Was the Old Testament hearer obliged to say that the
passage must be interpreted in the most obvious way?” 5
Well, of course there is an “obvious” way to understand
Ezek. 44-46 and that is in a literal way -- which he admits,
observe, is the obvious way.
Why should the Jew of, say, A. D. 25 have understood
the prophets other than literally (allowing for figures of
speech, of course)? There is no valid reason whatsoever.
This is an interesting fact in view of the vehement
denunciations, regarding the expectation of a temporal
kingdom, made by opposers of dispensational truth. Their
language is quite intemperate, especially considering the
obvious truth in the quotation just given from O. T. Allis,
coupled with the fact that a Jew could not do other than
understand that the prophets meant Judah, Israel, Jerusalem,
etc. by such terms. Let us hear a few of these denunciations
of the Jews who understood these terms literally.
The amillennialist P. Mauro wrote,
There are also prophecies concerning the “remnant of
Israel” that would return to the Lord in the latter days.
Now it is not surprising that the utterly degenerate and
carnally minded Jewish teachers of the times of Christ
should have interpreted prophecies of that class as
foretelling the restoration of the nation and its earthly
grandeur; but for Christian teachers to make that mistake
is surely inexcusable, seeing that, as has been shown in
Chapter II of the present volume, the Holy Spirit, by the
apostle Paul, has made known that such prophecies and
promises have their fulfillment in God’s new covenant
4. Understanding Dispensationalists, p. 99.
5. Ibid., p. 105.
people, the true “Israel of God.” 6 7
Paul, of course, taught no such thing. But even supposing he
had, the “utterly degenerate and carnally minded Jewish
teachers” did not have Paul’s writings when the Lord was
here. There was no reason for them to ‘spiritualize’ away
the prophecies, the actual words of which speak of a
temporal kingdom. P. Mauro, however, appears to blame
their degenerate, carnal mindedness -- which means they
ought to have spiritualized the prophecies. Why, he does not
say.
We come now to a seemingly worse charge, namely, that
the expectation of the earthly kingdom led to the crucifixion.
R. Zorn asked:
Should we then continue to recognize a view that
originated with the exegetical compromises of Judaism
whose efforts, not only resulted in the violent wresting
of Scripture along the erroneous byways of carnalistic
notion and materialistic misunderstanding, but
tragically led to the rejection of the Savior Himself at
the time of His first advent? 8
If these claims are true, it follows that John the Baptist and
our Lord did not confirm the expectation of a temporal
kingdom and so O. T. Allis asserted that:
The Kingdom announced by John and by Jesus was
primarily
and essentially a moral and spiritual kingdom.
9
Again,
. . . from the very outset Jesus not merely gave no
encouragement to, but quite definitely opposed, the
expectation of the Jews that an earthly, Jewish kingdom
of glory, such as David had established centuries before,
was about to be set up.10
In the next chapter, when we see that our Lord spoke to the
disciples about the kingdom, and even during 40 days after
the crucifixion, keep in mind this allegation that our Lord
“quite definitely opposed the expectation . . . .” Actually,
it is this assertion which is “quite definitely opposed” to the
facts of the matter.
Notice that there is an implicit pretension to spirituality
if one denies a coming, temporal kingdom with Israel
ascendant. The truth is that the denial is unspiritual and
judaizing for two reasons:
1.
It transmutes the prophecies of the kingdom into
“spiritual” blessings for the church, thus substituting
something else for the true, distinctive blessings of the
church.
6. {By “God’s new covenant people” he means the church, the church
allegedly being under the new covenant (cp. Jer. 31:31-34 and Heb. 8:8-13).}
7. The Hope of Israel, Swengel: Reiner, n.d., p. 84.
8. Church and Kingdom, p. 124.
10. Ibid., p. 71.
2. It substitutes for the truth their particular notion of a
unified view of Scripture. In practical result, the postmillennial/amillennial scheme, and covenant theology,
find the locus of Scripture to be in the salvation of the
elect in all ages and in the idea of covenant. The ages
are thus viewed as the unfolding of God’s salvation and
covenant. There is indeed truth in the thought that the
ages display the unfolding of God’s salvation, but it is a
serious distortion to make this central. Doing so results,
practically, in substituting benefits to man and results
produced by man, for God’s purpose and power. This
may be done unwittingly and by Calvinists no less.
The truth is that God’s self-revelation and His glory in Christ
is the purpose of creation and the theme of Scripture. This
glory is manifested in two spheres, the heavenly and earthly,.
1. There is Christ’s glory in the church as one body in
heavenly places as the principal (but not only) exhibition
of grace.
2. There will be Christ’s glory in government in the earth
with Israel as the center, where He humbled Himself to
the death of the cross.
We shall now turn directly to the quoted objections and
consider first the allegation that the Jewish expectation of a
temporal kingdom is an “exegetical compromise of
Judaism.” This means that the Jews should not have
understood the prophets literally. The Jews really had no
basis for doing anything else than understanding the prophets
literally. I remind you again of what the amillennialist,
O. T. Allis, rightly said:
capable of fulfillment in this present age. 11
A question that should be pondered is this: What would
have made John the Baptist understand them any other
way?
It is obvious that the prophecies are so written that, as a
matter of fact, they do speak of a coming temporal kingdom.
It is only by a process of ‘spiritual alchemy’ that these
prophecies are transmuted into what they are not. The
question is: what right did any Jew have NOT to understand
the prophets literally? The answer is: they had no right, no
Scripture, no word from Jehovah not to understand their
prophets literally. They had no grounds for understanding
Judah, Jerusalem and the house of Israel to refer to anything
but Jewish things, not the church. Our brethren have
castigated their understanding the prophets literally on this
particular matter, but give no solid Scriptural reason for this.
Could anyone dream for a moment that there is something in
the prophets that told the Jews to envision the kingdom as the
59
amillennialists and postmillennialists envision it? Could our
brethren even for one moment seriously mean for us to
believe that when God spoke to the Jews about a new
covenant with Judah and Israel, they should have known that
what He really meant was the church? They had no
knowledge of the church (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:9; Col.
1:26).
The following quotation ought to speak to our
CONSCIENCES about these things:
. . . Amongst the hearers were two Jews. A
discussion took place, in the vestry, between them and
the preacher, on the subject of a psalm which contained
a prophecy referring to the restoration of the Jewish
people. The pastor maintained that it could not be
understood in the sense of a national restoration. The
Jew who spoke answered him: “How then can you be
surprised that we should deny what you call the
incarnation?” “What!” said the clergyman, taking a
Bible, “is it not written: ‘And, behold, thou shalt
conceive, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name
Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of
the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the
throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the
house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall
be no end’?” The Israelite then asked the minister to take
up with him again the different parts of this passage,
which he did accordingly, and after having read the two
or three first sentences, the Jews were convinced that
they were to be interpreted literally; but, when they
came to these words, ‘And the Lord God shall give unto
Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign
over the house of Jacob,’ etc., the pastor said, This
signifies that He ‘shall reign in the hearts of His people.’
“If it is thus,” replied the Jew, “if it is not in Jerusalem,
where David had his throne, where he reigned, then I
deny that Mary had a son. I affirm, for my part, that
what is said on this subject signifies nothing else, save
that the Messiah was to be pure from His birth, and that
this is the true meaning of these words ‘a virgin having a
son’. You see I only follow your mode of interpreting
the end of this passage. I apply it to the beginning, and
by this means I deny the incarnation.” “But,” replied the
minister, “we admit the literal interpretation of this part
of the passage, because the event has proved that it was
to be understood thus.” I shall never forget with what an
air of disdain and contempt the Jew then said: “Oh! you
believe this, because it has happened, -- as for us, we
believe what is written, because God has said it.” We
ought therefore to take heed in what manner we interpret
prophecies; for, you see, if we deny the privileges
promised to the Jewish nation, we shake thereby even the
foundation of our faith. I take occasion here to observe
that there is a great difference between figurative
language and a system of spiritual interpretation, still too
much in vogue. There are facts foretold in figurative
language which have been or which will be fulfilled
literally. . . . Prophecies, describing the future glory of
the Jewish people under the emblem of a mountain,
raised above the hills, and to which all the nations shall
60
resort, are quoted in all Catholic catechisms, as proofs of
the infallibility of the Church of Rome, whose authority,
they say, is to extend over the whole world. They say,
moreover, that the geographical position of Rome proves
that these promises really apply to her. And truly, if
Jerusalem in the prophets signifies the Christian Church,
it seems that these promises concern the church of Rome,
which, alone on the earth, has raised these pretensions to
infallibility, universality and dominion. Whilst robbing
the Jewish nation of those prophecies which belong to her,
to apply them to the Christian Church, Christian
controversialists can with difficulty contest the pretensions
of the Church of Rome. But Jerusalem never means the
Christian Church -- it means Jerusalem; Judah means
Judah; Ephraim means Ephraim, and not France or
England. Let us call everything by its proper name.
Thus we shall understand better the grand but yet
unfinished work of our glorious God, that work which,
relatively to the Jews, among others, is not yet fulfilled.
It is for divine reasons that the Jews have been preserved
in the midst of the nations, as a separate people, waiting
for the King. This King, the last King of Israel, is still
alive. 12
Neither is it true that though the Jews should have understood
the prophets literally, yet they forfeited the kingdom and now
we should spiritualize the prophets. “The gifts and calling of
God [are] not subject to repentance” (Rom. 11:29).
Furthermore, such a notion is self-defeating if one regards
the church as the continuator of Israel. It is necessary to the
system to find prophecies of the church in the prophets (in
defiance of Rom. 16:25, 26, Col. 1:26 and Eph. 3:9), not
merely a totally new meaning attached afterwards.
12. O. The Prospect 1:29.
Chapter 2.2: What Did the Godly Remnant Expect?
61
Chapter 2.2
What Did
The Godly Remnant Expect?
The Expectation of
the Remnant and Our Lord
WHY OUR LORD WAS REJECTED?
Having seen that it was not only proper, but incumbent, too,
for a Jew to understand the prophets literally, we shall now
see that the godly remnant in our Lord’s time on earth, and
He Himself also, understood the prophets literally. In reply
to R. Zorn we point out that this expectation of the remnant
concerning a temporal kingdom, this alleged “exegetical
compromise of Judaism,” did not cause the godly remnant
to reject Christ. Thus the allegation that this expectation led
to His rejection and crucifixion is false and is mere dust that
clouds discernment.
The reason for the rejection of the Lord was because the
sovereign God, to Whom are known all His works, offered
the kingdom in the Person of the meek and lowly One. This
was a test to bring out the moral state of the people. The
first man (1 Cor. 15:47) 13 was still being tested and now the
greatest and final test, while the first man was not yet judged
and set aside in the cross, was being conducted. So the first
man, tested in the persons of the favored people, was put to
the final moral test (see Matt. 23:33-46). This test was the
final test of the heart of man; and so the first man’s standing
was judicially terminated in the death of Christ. Hence a
Christian can say, “I am crucified with Christ.”
It has been asked, if Christ came to offer an earthly,
Messianic kingdom, why did He not accept the desire
expressed in John 6 that He be king? The answer is found in
John 6:26: “Ye seek me not because ye have seen signs, but
because ye have eaten of the loaves and been filled.” It was
a false basis. Their god was their belly. The kingdom was
presented in the Person of the Lowly One and they really
were not interested in Himself as His searching words soon
brought out (cp. vv. 42, 64-66). Their moral state was at
issue. They were unfit for the kingdom. Thus God
13. 1 Cor. 15:47 shows us that there are two men. “The first man” had a
standing before God until the crucifixion. “The first man” denotes man in
his Adamic standing and responsibility.
sovereignly brought about, through the utilization of that
awful moral state, the crucifixion of Christ. Then there
could be brought out that aspect of glorifying Himself in
Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6): the saints are now a
heavenly company, seated in Christ in the heavenlies. This
was a secret, hid in God, concerning which silence had been
kept. This left the ancient promises and prophecies in force;
but the work on the cross effected the moral basis upon
which God will yet, sovereignly, bless His ancient people.
(We shall consider this again when looking at John 11:4753.)
And meanwhile, there has been brought out another
mystery -- something hidden from the O. T. prophets and
saints. There has been introduced a mystery aspect of the
kingdom. The Lord’s rejection is especially marked in Matt.
12; and then the Lord began speaking (Matt. 13) of the
mysteries of the kingdom. The reader would do well to read
W. Kelly’s exposition of Matthew on chapters 12 and 13.
The temporal kingdom is therefore postponed until God
has completed His work with the church. After the saints
have been brought above to the Father’s house (John 14:1-3),
the judgments against the apostates will commence. And
during that time a Jewish remnant will be formed, by
sovereign grace, of course, and be made ready for the King.
The moral character of this remnant is given in Psalm 1.
Psalm 2 speaks of the establishment of the King. We must
now leave this brief sketch and examine the expectation of
the Jewish remnant when our Lord was here.
THE EXPECTATION
Zacharias. “And Zacharias his father was filled with [the]
Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying . . .” (Luke 1:67).
Now, surely we do not expect the Holy Spirit to put forth a
carnal, rabbinical, degenerate idea concerning the kingdom,
do we? What did Zacharias prophesy? “Deliverance from
our enemies and out of the hand of all who hate us; to fulfil
mercy with our fathers and remember his holy covenant . .
.” (Luke 1:72,73). It is clear that he was referring to
national deliverance and the temporal kingdom.
Mary, Our Lord’s Mother. Mary was told this: “He
shall be great, and shall be called Son of [the] Highest; and
62
[the] Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father;
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and
of his kingdom there shall not be an end.” Do you really,
seriously, think that Mary understood and/or God meant that
this was a promise that her Son would reign in heaven over
the church? And if the prophets were to be understood
literally, can you think of better words to confirm the
promises? If God intended to confirm that the O. T.
prophecies were to be understood as applying to Israel, how
else should he have said it before you will believe it? Indeed
our Lord became a minister of the circumcision to confirm
the promises made to the fathers (Rom. 15:8).
Simeon. “This man was just and pious, awaiting the
consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25). It is idle to think he was
waiting for a spiritual kingdom. His attitude is put before us
in Scripture as commendatory.
Anna. She “spoke of him to all those who waited for
redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38; cp. Luke 24:21). Is
it even necessary to say that she wasn’t waiting for the work
of redemption on the cross, but, as others, was waiting for
Messiah to deliver Israel?
The Disciples. Do you think the disciples were thinking
about who would be greatest in a spiritual kingdom (Matt.
18:1)?
The Mother of James and John. She wanted her sons to
sit on the right and left hand of our Lord in His kingdom.
She couldn’t have had in mind the present period (Matt.
20:21). The Lord sanctioned the expectation of such a
kingdom.
James and John. They had the same request as their
mother (Mark 10:37). They wanted to sit on His right and
His left “in Thy glory.” Could anyone think they meant in
heaven now, or in the eternal state?
The Disciples Again. Just shortly before going to the
cross the Lord told them a parable because they thought the
kingdom was going to be manifested immediately (Luke
19:11-27). What kingdom was it that they thought was going
to be manifested immediately? This was after three years of
listening to our Lord. Note well that this expectation just
before He was going to the cross shows what the expectation
was regarding those saints cited above. Well, it was not
going to be manifested immediately. The man in the parable
went away to get a kingdom and return. He is waiting now
until the appointed time.
Joseph of Arimathaea. He is another one “who also
himself was awaiting the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:48).
Was he not awaiting the temporal kingdom? The way the
Spirit seems to commend these saints in such an expectation
ought to concern the opposers of the temporal kingdom.
The Dying Thief also did not spiritualize away the earthly
reign of the Son of Man. He requested that the Lord
remember him when He came into His kingdom. But,
rather, he would be in paradise that very day and not wait for
blessing until Christ appears to set up the kingdom in power
and glory.
Peter, too, would not spiritualize away the earthly reign of
the Son of Man. He was an eye-witness of His majesty, in
the mount (2 Pet. 1:16-18). And this explains, simply, Matt.
16:28. Those on the mountain (Matt. 17:1-9) saw a preview
of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Was that the socalled spiritual kingdom? Not at all. Matt. 16:24-28 shows
the Lord addressing His disciples. Some would not taste of
death till they saw Him coming in His kingdom. These were
the three who were with Him on the mountain and saw Him
transfigured. It is plain that some tasted of death who did not
see Him coming in His kingdom. So Pentecost was not the
coming of the Son of Man, since all the apostles were there,
except the son of perdition. At any rate, Peter, James and
John did see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, on the
mount of transfiguration, -- where, by the way, we have a
mixture of heavenly and earthly things so objectionable to the
opposers of dispensational truth.
John the Baptist. Our brethren who do not believe that
John and our Lord offered a temporal kingdom have rightly
said that the Jewish leaders believed in a coming, literal
kingdom. We have been seeing that the Jewish remnant, in
the time when our Lord was here, shared this view. The
magi expected this also (Matt. 2:2), and it worried Herod
(Matt. 2:3) as well as all Jerusalem (Matt. 2:3). There were
many who had a stake in the status quo. There was a great
crowd, too, who shouted “Hosanna to the King of Israel” (a
few days before they turned on Him). They hardly meant
‘King of the Church’ (which He is not now either, theology
notwithstanding). They, too, were expecting “the coming
kingdom of our father David” (Mark 11:10). And well they
might, for Daniel’s 69 weeks (Dan. 9) was just expiring.
But they grasped not the meaning of what Dan. 9:26 said of
the Messiah: “And shall have nothing.” Messiah would not
actually have that kingdom at His first coming.
The fact is, then, that the Gospels depict the expectation
of a coming, temporal kingdom as a general expectation of
leaders and led. Had John come announcing a spiritual
kingdom, he would not have been regarded as a prophet:
because, that would have been opposed to the general belief
concerning what the Old Testament prophets had said. He
came preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens
has drawn nigh” (Matt. 3:1). Is it not clear that this was an
announcement of the literal kingdom predicted by the
prophets?
The fact that it is so explains Matt. 11:3. His difficulty
was that he, the forerunner of this King, was in prison.
Perhaps then, He was not the coming One?! No doubt, as
with many others of the faithful remnant, he did not
harmonize the Lamb and the Lion aspects of Christ’s two
comings correctly. How could he, the forerunner, be in
prison when the deliverer of Israel (Luke 1:71-75) was there,
especially considering John’s father’s inspired declaration
(Luke 1:67)? So it is evident that he was expecting the
restoration of the kingdom. Was he a carnally minded Jew
too? His preaching concerning the kingdom was therefore
understood by himself to refer to the restored kingdom of
Israel.
Our Lord. Our Lord preached this message also, saying,
“Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh”
(Matt. 3:17). We maintain, then, that our Lord preached the
coming of a literal kingdom besides subsequently introducing
a mystery form of the kingdom, a form that exists now.
Furthermore, we maintain that our Lord never corrected the
expectation of the earthly kingdom; He never told anyone
that there was never going to be such a kingdom. He did this
neither before His death nor after it. What had our Lord
taught the disciples to pray? “Thy kingdom come, thy will
be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It is plain that this
prayer refers to earth, and a kingdom on earth. Why pray
for it to come if it came already when He came? It refers to
the manifested kingdom, the restored kingdom of Israel
through which Christ will administer His reign, and which,
not having yet been fulfilled, is yet future.
Luke 17:21 does not contradict what has been said. The
kingdom of God was in the midst of them as embodied
within His Person. The offer of the kingdom entailed the
acceptance of His Person and was a moral test meant by God
to manifest the moral state of the nation of Israel and its
leaders.
They rejected Him and thus rejected the
manifestation of the temporal kingdom.
The Disciples Once Again. Our Lord had sent out the
disciples to preach: “saying, The kingdom of the heavens
has drawn nigh” (Matt. 10:7). What do you think they
proclaimed was drawing nigh? the church? a spiritual
kingdom? that there would be no kingdom such as the
prophets literally prophesied? Keep in mind that our Lord
sent them to preach.
Moreover, our Lord told the apostles that they would sit
on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Luke 22:2930). Does that sound like He was “spiritualizing” the
prophets? I hope no one thinks that the 12 apostles are going
to judge the 12 tribes of Israel during the eternal state or are
doing so now: or that they are judging the church now.
Our Lord and the Two Disciples. In considering the
case of the two disciples to whom our Lord spoke on the way
to Emmaus, we shall observe something that bears on the
matter of why the Jews rejected our Lord. It was not, it has
been pointed out, because they erroneously expected a
temporal kingdom. It is clear that these two disciples shared
this expectation, the redemption of Jerusalem (cp. Luke
2:38). “But we had hoped that he was [the one] who is about
to redeem Israel. But then, besides all these things, it is
63
now, today, the third day since these things took place”
(Luke 24:21). Their hope was dashed. They had expected
a national deliverance and now He was dead. What was their
trouble -- that they interpreted the prophets literally?
Obviously not. They looked at the Scriptures selectively (as
those do who spiritually alchemize the Old Testament
blessings into church blessings and leave the curses to Israel).
Our Lord pointed this out to them: “O senseless and slow of
heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought
not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into
his glory? And having begun from Moses and from all the
prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the
things concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27).
Recall that the amillennialist, O. T. Allis, had claimed
that “. . . from the very outset Jesus not merely gave no
encouragement to, but quite definitely opposed, the
expectation of the Jews that an earthly Jewish kingdom of
glory, such as David had established centuries before, was
about to be set up.” We have already indicated that a change
came about in the ministry of Christ regarding the
introduction of the subject of the mystery aspect of the
kingdom -- so our Lord after that no longer spoke of the
kingdom as at hand. However, our Lord never opposed the
thought that a temporal kingdom would be set up. Notice
that He actually affirmed that expectation to these two
disciples. He told them that they were “slow of heart to
believe in all that the prophets had spoken.” He did not tell
them that the part they had believed was wrongly understood
by them. What had they believed? --the part about the
temporal kingdom! Wherein lay the trouble? -- in not
believing about the sufferings of Christ.
We claim that our Lord did here actually confirm
their understanding that there would be a temporal
kingdom.
In view of the expectation of a national kingdom by the
remnant, and our Lord’s confirmation of the validity of this
expectation, consider the following remark:
. . . that doctrine was the very cornerstone of the creed
of apostate Judaism in its last stage, and the prime cause
of their rejection and crucifixion of Christ . . . 14
So in effect this means that the godly remnant held to the
“cornerstone of the creed of apostate Judaism.”
After the 40 Days. It is remarkable, too, to consider that
the Lord spoke to the disciples for 40 days after the
resurrection “speaking of the things concerning the kingdom
of God” (Acts 1:3). Is it not strange if there was not going
to be any national restoration of the kingdom that after all of
that they still ask the Lord, “Is it at this time that thou
restorest the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). What! Forty
days on things pertaining to the kingdom and they still didn’t
14. P. Mauro, The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 34.
64
find out that they were all wrong, that there was not to be
any such kingdom, that those prophecies weren’t meant
literally? -- that that doctrine was not only carnal but the
cornerstone of apostate Judaism? One would have thought
that was sufficient time to disabuse their minds of that
grossly carnal, rabbinical, ruinous, 15 literalistic expectation?
And NOW does the Lord at last tell them they have a wrong
expectation? No, He points out that it is not yet the time for
it, thus once again confirming that expectation.
It is very plain that the disciples were still expecting the
kingdom in power. Did the Lord tell them that their
expectation was wrong? Will any man produce a Scripture
that says so? He told them that it wasn’t for them to know
the times and the seasons. Their expectation, then, was
correct; their time was wrong.
O. T. Allis says that the disciples apparently expected an
Israelitish kingdom. Why apparently? The words are
extremely plain, their expectation very transparent. But he
refuses to have it that way; namely, that their expectation
was right though the Lord corrected them as to the time, or
he wouldn’t have held his views.
But what is so interesting about his reply is this: he
criticizes C. I. Scofield for saying that Jesus gave one answer
to the disciples’ question, that “the time was God’s secret.”
O. T. Allis says the Lord gave “two” answers and it is the
second one which is important in this discussion, and it is
found in v. 8. That is, the kingdom was not an Israelitish
one, but world-embracing. This is O. T. Allis’ answer
concerning the temporal kingdom. 16 Did our brother forget
the “other” reply? He said there were “two”: why did he
by-pass the first (if there are two)? This is tantamount to
allowing the first to stand and trying to get around it by
getting the eyes on something else and making the second
reply contradict the first.
Philip Mauro understood their words correctly.
another connection he says:
In
We are not inquiring whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was
and is the true King of Israel; but whether or not He at
His first coming offered or proposed ‘to restore again the
kingdom to Israel’. 17
He quoted these words from Acts 1 and this indicates that he
understood well enough the disciples’ question. Implicit in
his statement is that after three years of our Lord’s ministry
they were still expecting a temporal kingdom.
R. Zorn claimed:
. . . [Acts] 1:6 where the last flicker on the apostles’ part
of the hope that national Israel once again be a political
15. Ibid., pp. 77,79.
16. O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 312, note 1.
17. More Than a Prophet, p. 33.
theocracy is mentioned. 18
These remarks implicitly admit what has been pointed out in
detail above; namely, that the remnant expected a temporal
kingdom and even did so 40 days after the Lord’s death, 40
days while He, in resurrection, had spoken to them things
concerning the kingdom of God. Our brethren expect us to
believe their incredible notion that our Lord “. . . from the
very outset . . . not merely gave no encouragement to, but
quite definitely opposed” the expectation of a temporal
kingdom. I suggest that such statements plainly illustrate the
power that an unscriptural theological system has upon the
mind.
After the ascension of the Lord the disciples had to wait
the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4) and of Christ also (Acts
1:8; John 15:26), i.e. the coming of the Spirit. The Spirit
would lead them into all truth (John 16:13), bring things to
their remembrance (John 14:26), show them things to come
(John 16:13), and communicate the deeps of God (1 Cor.
2:10). They had to wait on God and His time concerning
what might occur now that the Son of Man ascended up
where He was before (John 6:62) and before He returned to
set up the kingdom. Now we must see that provision was
made in the death of Christ for the nation of Israel, as such.
The Death of Christ
Provides Specifically
for Israel’s
National Future
The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees gathered a
council, and said, What do we? for this man does many
signs. If we let him thus alone, all will believe on him,
and the Romans will come and take away both our place
and our nation. But a certain one of them, Caiaphas,
being high priest that year, said to them, Ye know
nothing nor consider that it is profitable for you that one
die for the people, and not that the whole nation perish.
But this he did not say of himself; but, being high priest
that year, prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the
nation; and not for the nation only, but that he should
also gather together into one the children of God who
were scattered abroad. From that day therefore they took
counsel that they might kill him (John 11:47-53).
Here the heart, the state, is exposed. The self-interest, the
place they had, was at stake. The motive for killing our
Lord is clear. The human heart is depraved.
Note well that Caiaphas prophesied, -- “but this he did
not say of himself.” No. It was the Spirit of God Who
made what was in the heart come out of the mouth. The
purpose to kill our Lord, uttered by the high priest, is seen
by the Spirit to be a prophecy of the death of the Lord Jesus
for the nation. But it is added by John, “and not for the
nation only, but that he should gather in one the children of
God that were scattered abroad.” Thus two of the results of
the death of Christ are brought out here. One is the
gathering together into one of the children of God that were
scattered abroad. The work of Christ on the cross laid the
basis for this and it was realized at Pentecost.
The other result is for the nation of Israel. Our Lord
was a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises
made to the fathers (Rom. 15:8). His death included dying
for that nation. His work has laid the righteous basis for
God to form a nation of saved persons (Rom. 11:26; Isa.
60:21). When the kingdom is established by divine power all
the rebel Israelites will have been purged and the righteous
remain to form the nation. Thus the nation will be composed
of a spiritual people.
[As] I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, verily with a mighty
hand and with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured
out, will I reign over you. And I will bring you out from
the peoples, and will gather you out of the countries
wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with an
outstretched arm, and with fury poured out; and I will
bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there will
I enter into judgment with you face to face. Like as I
entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness
of the land of Egypt, so will I enter into judgment with
you, saith the Lord Jehovah. And I will cause you to pass
under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the
covenant. And I will purge out from among you the
rebels, and them that transgress against me; I will bring
them forth out of the country where they sojourn, but they
shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know
that I [am] Jehovah (Ezek. 20:33-38).
Besides those brought out of the countries, God will do a
purging work in Palestine wherein two thirds shall perish
(Zech. 13:8).
Thus shall the Deliverer turn away
ungodliness from Jacob.
For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, of this
mystery, that ye may not be wise in your own conceits,
that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the
fullness of the nations be come in; and so all Israel shall
be saved. According as it is written, The deliverer shall
come out of Zion; he shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob. And this is the covenant from me to them, when I
shall have taken away their sins. As regards the glad
tidings, [they are] enemies on your account; but as
regards election, beloved on account of the fathers. For
the gifts and the calling of God [are] not subject to
repentance (Rom. 11:25-29).
65
110:3).
This is God acting sovereignly to bring to pass that which
was uttered in the power of the Spirit by the mouth of the O.
T. prophets. Meanwhile, through the work on the cross, the
righteous basis upon which to deal with the nation has been
laid. In that coming day they will be under a new covenant.
Behold, days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers, in the day of my taking them by the hand,
to leadthem out of the land of Egypt; which my
covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto
them, saith Jehovah.For this is the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith
Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and will
write it in their heart; and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying,
Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah:
for I will pardon their iniquity, and their sin will I
remember no more (Jer. 31:31-34).
. . . and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant
(Ezek. 20:38).
. . . who are Israelites; whose [is] the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the
service, and the promises; whose [are] the fathers; and
of whom, as according to flesh, [is] the Christ, who is
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen (Rom. 9:4, 5).
In Rom. 9:3 Paul says that these Israelites are “my brethren,
my kinsmen according to the flesh.” And to whom does he
say the covenants belong? Yes, to them. But in that day
when Christ reigns on His own throne they will not only be
kinsmen according to the flesh; they will all be righteous.
They will all be Israelites indeed. They will be true Jews and
a spiritual Israel. They will all be the “Israel of God” in that
day. They will experience the blessedness of the covenant
with Abraham and David, and of the New Covenant. Christ
died for that nation and it is based upon that work that God
can righteously do all those things and make good the ancient
promises. This is His moral way.
I would conclude by calling your attention to Rev. 3:21
which indicates that the Lord is not yet seated on His own
throne (the throne of David), but on the Father’s throne (cp.
Matt. 25:31). The reign of Christ predicted by the O. T.
prophets has not yet commenced. Now, may the Lord direct
our hearts and understanding to know more of the mystery of
Christ and the church, and give us to walk in accordance
with our calling.
. . . and I will remove the iniquity of this land in one day
(Zech. 3:9).
Thy people also shall be all righteous (Isa. 60:21; see also
59:20, 21; 65:9; 66:7-9; 4:4; Zech. 3:9; 12:10; and Psalm
22:31).
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power (Psalm
66
Chapter 2.3: The Postponement of the Kingdom
67
Chapter 2.3
The Postponement
of the Kingdom
Introduction
In chapter 2.1 we reviewed the expectation of the kingdom by
John the Baptist, our Lord, the apostles and the remnant, and
found that they all believed in a literal kingdom. We saw also
that the death of Christ provides for Israel’s national future.
The literal kingdom was not, of course, inaugurated and thus
it is postponed, so to speak. We shall now specifically
consider this postponement; first considering why the offer
of the kingdom, in the Person of the Lowly One, was rejected
by Israel, and then reviewing God’s use of Israel’s
stubbornness. In concluding Part 2 we shall answer the
charge that our view of the offer of the kingdom makes God
guilty of making an immoral offer.
By the “postponement” of the literal kingdom I do not
say or imply that it was God’s intention to inaugurate that
kingdom when our Lord was here, though there may be some
who think that. Nor does it imply that the cross was
unforeseen and an accident -- a foolish notion indeed. It does
mean that the kingdom will be inaugurated after God’s present
work of forming that company which will be displayed in
heavenly glory when Christ Who is our life is manifested
(Col. 3:4). God has arranged all. In the meantime a mystery
form of the kingdom has been inaugurated, a form unforeseen
by the Old Testament prophets. Also in the meantime, Christ
is seated with “my Father in his throne” (Rev. 3:21). He is
not yet upon His own throne; but the present overcomer is
promised co-enthronement with Christ when Christ does sit
on His own throne (Rev. 3:21). It is not now the kingdom
and power, but the kingdom and patience (Rev. 1:9).
Why Was the Moral Presentation
of the Kingdom Refused?
Opposers of dispensational truth suppose that, since the Jews
did expect a literal kingdom (they did, we saw -- based on the
Old Testament prophets), they would have accepted it had it
actually been offered to them. Since a literal kingdom was
not inaugurated, they conclude that the preaching of John and
our Lord never referred to a literal kingdom but referred to a
spiritual kingdom. (However, the nation did not accept any
spiritual kingdom). We have already seen that they preached
about a temporal kingdom. Such objectors fail to see the
purpose of God, fail to come to grips with the ruin of the first
man, and fail to see that God presented the kingdom in such
a moral way so as to test and reveal the state of the first man
even in the persons composing the favored nation, this test
receiving its fullest expression in the rejection of JehovahJesus.
Both John and the Lord Jesus preached “Repent, for the
kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17).
The Lord preached “the glad tidings of the kingdom” (Matt.
4:23) -- the good news that the kingdom was coming. It
seems that the phrase “the kingdom of the heavens” derives
from Dan. 4:26. As used by John and our Lord in this
preaching, it refers to the reign of the heavens as manifested
on earth under Messiah’s rule before His ancients in glory
(Isa. 24:23).
The key word in connection with John’s and our Lord’s
preaching the kingdom had drawn nigh is the word repent.
So that while the kingdom was promised to Israel, there were
suitable moral conditions for its inauguration. The fact is that
the offer of the kingdom came in the Person of the lowly One
Who called for repentance. The offer thus was a test of the
moral state of Israel as a people. The Jews needed to repent
and submit to the Lord Jesus. Only a very small company
received the Lord Jesus. 19 In a previous chapter it was
pointed out that even after our Lord’s resurrection, after the
40 days, the disciples asked, “Lord, is it at this time that thou
restorest the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). This expectation
was correct, but the time was not yet. If they were expecting
a restoration of the kingdom to Israel at that point, what do
you think they were preaching about when the Lord sent the
twelve and told them: “And as ye go, preach, saying, The
kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh” (Matt. 10:7)? Do
19. When Christ comes again, there will be a remnant of Israel which will
form the nation consequent upon the destruction of all the rebels (cp. Ezek.
20, for example; Zech. 3:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:25-29; etc.). Thus God
will bless Israel in accordance with His holiness and moral ways.
68
you think the Lord was directing them to preach about a
kingdom such as we are in now? And when the twelve
preached, do you think that is what they meant by their
words? There is no absurdity, no difficulty, when we see that
the preaching of John and the early preaching of the Lord and
the twelve referred to the promised reign of the Son of David
over Israel. The fact is, then, that the literal kingdom was
preached, but there was no turning to God by the nation. The
lowly and meek One was not to their liking. They would have
the kingdom, but not on God’s terms -- repentance, and
acceptance of the Lord Jesus. 20 It was part of God’s testing
of the first man, the object of which was to demonstrate the
total ruin of man. 21 Only those whom God sovereignly
caused to be born again received the Lord Jesus.
Thus was the state of the first man brought into bold
relief. Instead of their accepting Him, they crucified Him -but this was how many Old Testament prophecies were
fulfilled. And that very work accomplished on the cross made
provision for the national blessing of the nation, as such, as
John 11:52, 53 declares. No man can be saved, past, present
or future, apart from the work on the cross -- and even the
future, national blessing of Israel is founded on that work, as
all blessing must be.
It does not follow, however, that “the next thing in
order” concerning ‘God’s program’ was the national
restoration of Israel. The unfolding of the ways of God was:
(1) The presentation of the kingdom in the Person of Christ
on the grounds of their repentance and acceptance of
Him,
(2) The rejection of Himself and His crucifixion,
(3) The abeyance of the gospel of the kingdom and the
postponement, or delay, of the kingdom, and
(4) The unfolding of the secret, the mystery, hid from ages
20. Referring to John 6:15, G. Murray remarks, “The truth is that instead
of offering the Jews an earthly kingdom, the Jews offered the kingdom to
Jesus” (Millennial Studies, p. 69). See how he misses the simple, grand
truth! They wanted Him as king on their terms. They refused Him on His
terms. Their terms involved no repentance, no moral judgment on their
ways, as well as no obedience to the will of God as expressed in the Lowly
One. Their terms were -- bread in the stomach. Their god was their belly.
There were spiritual requirements which they were not prepared to realize in
their lives. Whenever man is tested, he proves the heart is deceitful and
incurable. So instead of seeing this remarkable contrast, non-millenarians
stumble on it.
21 John Gerstner cites John 5:15 as “particularly problematical” for
those who speak of the offer of the kingdom:
The problem for dispensationalists is that here the Jews are recorded
as asking Christ to accept the very temporal kingship which
dispensationalists say the Jews were always refusing. As we see in
this text, however, it was Christ who rejected the offer of a temporal
kingdom (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, p. 174).
The problem for those of covenant theology is that they are not able to see
that Christ rejected kingship based on the fleshly motives of those occupied
with their bellies.
and generations, hid in God, a mystery as to which
silence had been kept.
God’s Use of Israel’s Stubbornness
As God used Pharaoh, as He used Balaam, or Judas in our
Lord’s case, as He in His sovereign disposition pleased, so He
used the rejection of the kingdom in the Person of Christ.
God indeed means to bless Israel nationally (Rom. 11:25-29)
and He will do so. But there was a secret undisclosed to the
prophets that God meant to reveal after the great foundation
for all blessing was laid in the work upon the cross, where
God’s nature was displayed and Himself glorified and
vindicated with respect to the question of sin, a matter entirely
necessary and essential. We turn now to help from W.
Trotter on the subject of how God used Israel’s stubbornness.
A vineyard let out to husbandmen is the figure employed
by our Lord, to set forth their privileges and responsibilities, and to describe their guilt (Matt. 21:33, etc.).
It is not, as in Isaiah 5, the fertility of the vineyard that
is in question, but the honesty of the husbandmen, and
the consequent productiveness to their lord, of the
grounds entrusted to their care. “When the time of the
fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen,
that they might receive the fruits.” Thus had the
prophets been sent to Israel. With what result? “The
husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed
another, and stoned another.” Thus had Israel dealt with
the prophets who had been sent to them. But great is the
divine longsuffering. The owner of the vineyard had
patience with the husbandmen, and “sent other servants
more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.”
Was there no hope remaining? Could no further means
be tried? Yes: “last of all, he sent unto them his son,
saying, They will reverence my son.” Such, therefore,
is one aspect in which the mission of Jesus is to be
viewed. No doubt He came to reveal the Father, and to
accomplish redemption by the sacrifice of Himself; but
He also came seeking fruit on God’s behalf from those
who were responsible for rendering it. Before He
became the sacrifice for human guilt upon the cross, He
was presented as the final test of man’s condition before
God. Israel was the theater in which the experiment was
made: but it was human nature itself -- man, as such -that was put to the test. With God in the distance, or
behind the veil, man had, with every lesser advantage of
laws, messengers, prophecies, warnings, promises, made
no return to God for the pains bestowed; would he, now
that God was revealed in the person of His Son, be more
submissive or obedient? Alas! “when the husbandmen
saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the
heir: come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his
inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of
the vineyard, and slew him.” The last astounding proof
of God’s forbearing love, of patience which nothing yet
had sufficed to exhaust, drew forth from man -- from
Israel -- the expression of intense and complete hatred.
They cast Him out of the vineyard and slew him!
The application of this parable was left by the Savior
to the Jews themselves. He asks them what might be
expected to be done by the lord of the vineyard to these
husbandmen, and they are obliged to reply, “He will
miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his
vineyard unto others.” He then reminds them of the
Stone rejected by the builders, and of its high destiny to
be the Head of the corner, and adds, “Therefore say I
unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you,
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
But it was not only as the representative of God’s
claims -- as seeking fruit -- that the Jews rejected their
Messiah: -- it was also as the revealer and expression of
God’s perfect grace. A certain king makes a marriage for
his son, and sends his servants to call the invited guests -such as were bidden: “but they would not come” (Matt.
22:1-14). Nothing is claimed of the guests at a marriage
feast; everything is provided, and the guests partake
freely of the bounty of their host. But the grace which
thus provides all for man, and makes him welcome to the
whole, is as unwelcome to his heart as those righteous
claims of God’s holy law with which he refuses to
comply. “They would not come.” But what cannot grace
do? The death of Christ is itself made the ground of new
invitations! “Again, he sent forth other servants, saying,
Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my
dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things
are now ready: come unto the marriage.” What can be
represented here, but the ministry of the apostles to Israel
after the death and resurrection of their Lord? Alas! it
was with the same result; save where sovereign grace
imparted a new life and thus subdued the opposition of
man’s will, these further invitations met with no better
reception than the former. “They made light of it . . .
and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them
spitefully and slew them.” It was for this rejection of the
gospel of an ascended Christ, proclaimed by the Holy
Ghost come down from heaven, that judgment was
executed on Jerusalem and the Jews. “But when the king
heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his
armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up
their city.” Nor was it till they had thus rejected mercy,
offered to them in every form, and pressed on their
acceptance in every way, that the proclamation of
heavenly mercy went forth universally: -- all being now
indiscriminately bidden to the feast. “Go ye therefore
into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the
marriage.”
If we turn now to the early chapters of the Acts . . .
we shall find that what they present is, this lingering of
divine mercy over Israel, before the preaching of the
gospel to the Gentiles. They had indeed committed an
unparalleled crime in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus,
and in a certain sense filled up the measure of their
iniquity. But the vine-dresser had interceded for the
69
barren fig tree (Luke 13:8); Jesus, on the cross, had
cried, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what
they do:” this, their ignorance, thus pleaded by the
Redeemer on the cross, is precisely what the Holy Ghost
admits by Peter in Acts 3:17; “And now, brethren, I wot
that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.”
So far were they, in answer to the intercession of Jesus,
conditionally forgiven, that instead of judgment being
instantly executed, full, free, absolute forgiveness was
proclaimed to them, on condition of their repentance.
Observe too, that it is national forgiveness of which the
apostle treats, and the restoration of their forfeited
national blessings, even including the return of Jesus
Himself. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that
your sins may be blotted out, so that (see the Greek 22)
the times of refreshing may come from the presence of
the Lord: and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before
was preached unto you, whom the heaven must receive
until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath
spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
world began.” Forgiveness of sins, and the time of
refreshing, or restitution, of which all the prophets had
witnessed, as well as the return of the Lord they had
rejected, are here proposed to the Jews on condition of
their repentance. This was the only condition on which
Old Testament prophecy had suspended the arrival of
these bright and happy days for Israel; and on this
condition they are still held out by the apostle. “Known
unto God are all his works from the beginning of the
world.” He well knew that they who had rejected and
crucified a humbled Messiah on earth would still reject
this Holy Ghost-testimony to an ascended and returning
Christ; and everything which ensued was arranged of
God accordingly. But if Jesus Himself, looking down
upon Jerusalem and weeping over it, could say, “If thou
hadst known, even thou at least in this thy day, the things
which belong unto thy peace!” we need not, in the
unchangeableness of God’s purposes, find any difficulty
as to vast and wondrous results depending on Israel’s
repentance, as taught in Acts 3, even though it was surely
foreknown of God that they would persist in their sin,
and that wrath would come upon them to the uttermost.
We may well understand that what was long afterwards
said by Paul to the Jews of a certain locality was true of
the whole nation: “It was necessary that the word of God
should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put
it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of
everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46).
The martyrdom of Stephen terminated for the present all
hopes of Jerusalem’s repentance, or of Israel’s reception
of the Lord whom they had crucified; and seeing that
every Old Testament prediction of the kingdom, or the
millennium, treated of its establishment as dependent on
Israel’s conversion, that also was indefinitely postponed;
and thus was the way prepared for the revelation of the
22. The Greek word @BTH occurs upwards of fifty times in the New
Testament, and is never, save in this instance, rendered “when.” Its ordinary
rendering, and simple obvious import, are as given above.
70
mystery, till then necessarily concealed, that the period of
Christ’s rejection by Israel and the earth, should be
occupied in the calling and formation by the Holy Ghost
of “the church” -- the elect body or bride of Christ -- to
be the vessel of His sympathies and sharer of His
rejection while He sits on the Father’s throne on high;
and also to be the sharer of His glory when He shall “take
to him his great power and reign” upon the earth. 23
We may conclude, with W. Trotter, that God used Israel’s
stubbornness:
1. As the occasion of giving the kingdom to “a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof,”
2. As the occasion to turn to the Gentiles,
3. As the occasion to send forth the gospel of the glory
(2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Tim. 1:11) universally,
4. As the occasion for the revelation of the mystery of
Christ and the church.
An Objection to the
Offer of the Kingdom
by an Authentic Calvinist
Among many other objections to dispensational truth John
Gerstner raises is the morality issue regarding the offer of the
kingdom to the nation of Israel. He alleges that the offer, as
described by dispensational truth, would be an immoral one
for God to make. The objection is that God could not make
the nation an offer that He had no intention that they should
accept. Before coming to that point, I desire to connect that
issue with his Calvinistic view regarding the gospel, compare
that view with Acts 17:30, 31, the giving of the law, and the
presentation of Messiah to his own. Then we will consider
the matter of the kingdom offer. My purpose in doing this
is twofold. We will observe that this morality-of-God issue
involves not only the offer of the kingdom, but also these
other actions of God. This will also illustrate the contrast
between Calvinism as a system of man’s devising and the
balance of truth brought out in the unfolding of
dispensational truth. First, then, consider what J. Gerstner
says about the offer of the gospel:
The dispensationalist asks the authentic Calvinist whether,
supposing a non-elect person had actually chosen to
believe, God would have accepted that person’s faith.
God knows who and who will not accept it, yet He offers
the gospel to everybody. If everybody actually did accept
it, then God could not actually save everybody because He
had already declared that everyone would not be saved.
If He saved everybody, He would prove Himself to be
ignorant of what was going to happen and frustrated in all
of His counsels and purposes. So what difference, the
23. The Bible Treasury 1:40,41.
dispensationalist asks, is there between the dispensational
idea of a kingdom offer and the Calvinist saying that the
gospel is offered to all while God designs the Atonement
only for the elect and hence could save only the elect.
This might be a compelling argument except that the
dispensational representation of Reformed theology is a
caricature at this point. We do not teach that God invites
reprobates to believe and be saved knowing full well that
He will not give them a heart of faith. In fact, God does
not call reprobates! He calls persons who recognize and
admit themselves to be sinners. Those who confess
themselves to be sinners, and they only, are called. Any
one of them who comes will be saved. God never invited
anyone who, if he responded, would be refused. God
would never be embarrassed, even hypothetically, by
someone coming and being rejected because he was not
predestinated and foreknown. Every convicted sinner
who has come, would come, will come, has been, would
be, or will be accepted.24
We are told here that God does not “invite reprobates to
believe and be saved knowing full well that He will not give
them a heart of faith.” Here is the crux of the argument -which he will apply to the offer of the kingdom also. In
regards to the invitation of “reprobates,” we might notice
that “a certain man made a great supper and invited many”
(Luke 14:16), but all made excuse, yet the servant
(indicating the Spirit) is told, “Go out into the ways and
fences and compel to come in . . .” (Luke 14:23).
Obviously, an invitation is not enough. Not one that was
invited came. But were they invited to the supper? Why,
yes, they were. What if they had all come? But that was not
possible, because man is totally ruined, and so those
ridiculous excuses not to come to the supper were made.
Something more is needed: “compel to come in.” Many are
invited, but the house will be filled with those compelled by
sovereign grace. This is the grace of God in effecting a
sinner’s salvation. Why deny that those who did not come
were not invited? -- unless you have a troublesome
theological notion to maintain. Many Calvinists and
Arminians do not properly understand the responsibility of
man and the sovereignty of God. The invitation addresses
the responsibility of man and puts into bold relief his total
ruin.
It is obvious that the apostles preached the gospel to all.
But the authentic Calvinist retorts that God does not ‘invite
reprobates to believe and be saved.’ The Word of God says:
God therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance,
now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent,
because he has set a day in which he is going to judge the
habitable earth in righteousness by [the] man whom he
has appointed, giving the proof [of it] to all [in] having
raised him from among [the] dead (Acts 17:30,31.).
24. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, p. 177.
71
accept it?
See also Acts 3:18,19; 8:22; 26:20, 21.
God does sovereignly quicken whom He will (James
1:18; John 1:13; Rom. 9:16; Luke 14:18-23; Rom. 8:7;
John 6:44; 3:27); but that God therefore does not command
all everywhere to repent is a caricature of the Word of God.
If God had meant to say that all everywhere should repent,
how would he have said it? If God had enjoined that all the
elect everywhere should repent, how should He have said it?
Are we going to be told that God does not enjoin “reprobates”
to repent? -- as if they are not responsible to repent?
Inability to pay does not relieve one of responsibility to pay.
Of course the flesh cannot repent. We know that, not by
constructing a system, the (supposed) logic of which we can
rejoice in, but by the Word of God:
Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for
it is not subject to the law of God; for neither indeed can
it be” (Rom. 8:7).
Man is totally ruined. He needs to be born again (John 3:3)
and this is accomplished by a sovereign act of God (James
1:18; John 1:12,13, etc.) in communicating a new nature
(1 John 3:9). This is not the flesh improved. That is totally
and unalterably corrupt. God’s seed abides in a Christian (1
John 3:9). When God views the Christian in a certain way,
He says of him, “and cannot sin” (1 John 3:9). This is not
“sinless perfection” on earth but God predicating of the
believer, viewed as in Christ, what is true of the new nature.
Positionally, God looks at the believer as “in Christ” and says
of believers, “even as he is, we are in this world” (1 John
4:17). “The mind of the flesh” cannot repent. The person
who receives the new nature, sovereignly communicated by
God, repents because, as having that new nature, he can
repent. 25 This does not relieve the sinner of his responsibility.
In order to indicate the connection of this issue with other
great facts of Scripture, we might ask the following questions:
˜ How could God “invite” a “reprobate” to His supper
(Luke 14:17) or wedding feast (Matt. 22:1-6) who He
has no intention shall attend, while He has others
compelled (Luke 14:23) to come?
˜ How could God offer Israel a promise of life and blessing
if they would keep the law (Lev. 18:1, 5; Deut. 30:19,
20) when He knew no man could keep it (Rom. 8:7)?
˜ How can God enjoin all everywhere to repent (Acts
17:30, 31), when He has no intention that all everywhere
shall repent?
˜ How could God “offer” the kingdom to the nation of
Israel (Matt. 21:4, 5) if He had no intention for them to
25. I am not unaware of denials that the believer has two natures. J. Gerstner
refers to the idea of two natures as “psychical schizophrenia,” Wrongly
Dividing the Word of Truth, p. 213.
J. Gerstner, and others of the same theological system, raise
the issue of how an insincere offer could be compatible with
the morality of God. The issue raised means that God is
dishonest in doing these things that He actually has done.
Of course, I can easily imagine that a response would be
that the words “all everywhere” do not mean “all
everywhere”; but rather they mean only those who actually
repent. That is, God would be enjoining only the elect to
repent. In other words God
. . . now enjoins all everywhere, except reprobates, to
repent.
If “the authentic Calvinist” accepts such a view of Acts
17:31, 32, it should be obvious to the reader where this
objection leads: systematic distortion of the words of God for
the support of a false theological system. On the other hand,
the authentic Calvinist says that “all everywhere” means
exactly that, then the insincerity/morality issue he has raised
is turned against himself because then he is a person who
condemns God for what he has, in actuality, done.
As indicated in a question above, this issue also involves
the law:
And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying, Speak unto the
children of Israel . . . And ye shall observe my statutes
and my judgments, by which the man that doeth them
shall live: I am Jehovah (Lev. 18:1, 5).
I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you:
life and death have I set before you, blessing and cursing:
choose then life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed,
in loving Jehovah thy God, in hearkening to his voice,
and in cleaving to him -- for this is thy life and the length
of thy days -- that thou mayest dwell in the land which
Jehovah swore unto thy fathers (Deut. 30:19, 20).
This was addressed to all Israel -- and surely there must have
been some “reprobates” 26 among them. How could God do
such a thing when he knew not one man could keep the law:
Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for
it is not subject to the law of God; for neither indeed can
it be (Rom 8:7).
So here is God doing the very thing that “the authentic
Calvinist” says that God cannot do, because that would be
immoral. I suggest that the problem is with those who
wrongly say such things about God. It is reasoning from man
to God. It is limiting God by what man ought not to do in his
own affairs. The objection has man, not God, at the center.
The law, which addressed the first man in the persons of
the favored nation of Israel, addressed the first man as
responsible, and it exposed the total ruin of the first man.
Because a debtor cannot pay his debt he is not therefore
absolved from responsibility. Everyone insists on that fact
26. I am using his word, but do not accept the Calvinistic theory of an
election to reprobation.
72
when his own wallet is involved, but, interestingly, some may
say that if a man cannot pay God then he is absolved from
responsibility. 27 Moreover, he says, in effect or explicitly,
that God may not expose man’s inability and ruin by offering
him something he cannot accept; or, by commanding him to
do something he cannot perform. But it is clear to those who
are neither Calvinists or Arminians that God has done exactly
that in displaying his own sovereignty and man’s ruin, in His
purpose to glorify himself in Christ.
The presentation of Messiah to Israel is also involved in
this issue. The Lord Jesus came; to whom?
He came to his own, and his own received him not (John
1:11; cp. 19:15).
But all this came to pass, that that might be fulfilled which
was spoken through the prophet, saying, Behold thy King
cometh unto thee, meek, . . . (Matt. 21:4, 5).
Are we going to be told that He only came to the elect? The
fact is that the whole of what is meant by the phrase “his own
received him not” 28 was placed into responsibility to receive
Him -- though God knew that totally ruined man would not.
What? His own were not responsible to receive Him?
Excuse me, but the idea is absurd and exposes this system.
Inability to pay does not relieve from responsibility to pay;
and God addresses that responsibility to expose man’s total
ruin.
Let us now turn to the subject of the offer of the kingdom
to the nation of Israel. There is an argument against the offer
of a temporal kingdom to Israel: that if Israel had accepted
such an offer, then the prophecies of Christ’s death, etc.,
would have been false. This argument has been reversed
upon those who believe that the offer was about a spiritual
kingdom: if the Jews had accepted the offer of a spiritual
kingdom that would have set aside the prophecies of Christ’s
death, etc. How does an authentic Calvinist respond to such
a turn of the argument? To this J. Gerstner replied:
. . . Christ never offered His true spiritual kingdom to all
Jews but only to Jews who acknowledged that they were
sinners. All those Jews did accept the kingdom offer. In
other words, all those Jews to whom Christ offered His
kingdom did accept it and those who did not were never
offered
it. The later could and did account for the cross.
29
We see here the same argument applied to the offer of the
kingdom as we saw, above, applied to the offer of the gospel.
God, he believes, only addressed the elect. Concerning the
kingdom, he wrote:
This “kingdom offer” is surely an appalling notion . . . .
The primary objection is a moral one. A clear implication
27. God holds man responsible, though he cannot pay, and we ought to
learn from this that it is right to hold man responsible though he cannot
pay. Grace and mercy is another matter.
28. I suppose these would be “reprobates” to an authentic Calvinist.
of the dispensational view is that God was offering Israel
a very wicked option. According to Dispensationalism,
the Lord Jesus Christ was offering something to the Jews
in good faith which, had they accepted, would have
destroyed the only way of man’s salvation. God is an
honest God. He is a sincere God. He, therefore, truly
offered to the Jews the setting up of a kingdom which
would have made the Cross impossible. Obviously, if
God did offer a kingdom which He could not have
permitted to be established, He could be neither honest
nor sincere.
We know the way the dispensationalists themselves
account for such a concept. They feel that they are
absolved from guilt by their view of divine sovereignty.
Because they believe in divine foreknowledge, they say
that God knew from all eternity that, when the Jews were
presented with the kingdom by Christ, they would refuse
it. Consequently there was no possibility of Christ setting
up His kingdom at that time and making the Cross
unnecessary. But this knowledge of God does not make
Him honest and sincere. He is doing it safely, as it were,
because He knows that this dishonest and insincere offer
will never be accepted.
The fact of the matter is He could not possibly have
redeemed His promise. If the Jews had embraced
Christ’s offer, God would have had to say, “I am sorry,
Christ cannot be elevated to the throne at this time. He
must die on a cross.” If the Jews expostulated and said,
“But you offered us this,” He would have had to say that
it was not a sincere offer. I thought that you would never
accept it. Of course, the dispensationalist in the
background is saying, “No, that would never happen
because God knew it would never happen.”
We are granting that it never could have happened.
Still, such a divine offer would have been insincere. God
was making an offer that He could never have redeemed
though He dishonestly said that He would if it were
accepted. It is as if I safely offered a million dollars
(which I do not have) to a debt-ridden relative who
detested me because I knew, his hatred of me being what
it was, he would never accept it. 30
But what of the fact that John and our Lord preached the
kingdom to all the Jews as also did the disciples (Luke 9:1-6)?
The “authentic Calvinist” retorts that “Christ never offered”
the kingdom to those who did not accept it. 31
This is meant to ‘save’ the character of God from
‘offering’ something it was not His intention to give them. It
is quite correct that the Calvinist should not do this in his own
affairs -- but he therefore reasons upon the prerogatives of
God and limits His sovereign action. This is the solution of
this theological system to what they have called a moral issue
regarding God’s character. It parallels the notion that God
30. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, pp. 172,173.
31. It follows, for example, that the disciples in Acts 1:6 did not know they
had accepted the spiritual kingdom that allegedly the Lord proclaimed. They
were still looking for the kingdom for Israel.
does not “invite” those who do not respond to the gospel to
believe and be saved. Truly “the authentic Calvinist” view is
“an appalling notion,” “a moral one,” that falsifies God’s
dealings with sinners. The solution of these questions lies in
rightly applying to the issues the sovereignty of God and the
total ruin of man -- with an understanding of the testing of the
first man.
73
Concerning whosoever in John 3:16, John Calvin wrote:
light into the world, and love in the world, their king in
the world, yea, God, Himself in power and goodness in
the world, would not lead the flesh to repentance. And
until this trial was put to it [the flesh], and (specially as
regard’s the Jews) coming according to promise and
prophecy, man was not, in the dealings of God with Him,
pronounced absolutely and finally bad. “If I had come
and spoken unto them they had not had sin; but now they
have no cloak for their sin. If I had not done among them
the works which none other man did, they had not had
sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and
my Father.” God never purposed to save by the old man,
any more than he expected the law to be kept by the old
man. But He did present His Son to man in his former
state, and viewed as Israel after the flesh, to show the
hopelessly sinful state of it [the flesh]. and, till He had
done this, He did not pronounce upon it as the subject of
nothing at all but judgment.
And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both
to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and cut off
every excuse from unbelievers. 33
Now the testimony starts from this ground that all
are entirely lost, the world is convicted of sin, because
they have not believed in Christ. 34
Since John Calvin did not believe that any of the
indiscriminately invited sinners could partake of life except
the elect, does that mean, according to J. Gerstner’s reasoning
on the offer of the kingdom, that John Calvin believed in an
immoral, or insincere, invitation on God’s part? -- and that
John Calvin was not an “authentic Calvinist”? We agree with
John Calvin’s quoted statements and regard J. Gerstner’s
objection as deficient in understanding God’s addressing
man’s responsibility.
J. Gerstner complained that it is assumed “that a sincere offer
is compatible with the foreknowledge of God rather than
demonstrating how it is compatible.” 35 What does
‘demonstration’ mean to authentic Calvinists who, when God
says “all everywhere,” pretend that means all everywhere
except “reprobates,” etc. etc. If you say to such, ‘I will show
you a Scripture where God commands all everywhere to
repent,’ he will tell you that you have not demonstrated it, nor
are you able to do so -- because God does not command
“reprobates” to repent. Do you see how he “demonstrates”
that?
Concerning this, John Calvin (the most authentic
Calvinist, I suppose) wrote:
Now he willeth all men. In these words Paul teacheth that
we must give ear to God so soon as he speaketh, as it is
written, “To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts,” (Psalm 95:7, 8.) For the stubbornness of
those men is without excuse, who foreslow [neglect] this
opportunity when God doth gently call them unto him. 32
J. N. Darby pointed out that what is at the bottom of the
Arminian/Calvinist dispute is responsibility. Both systems
view man’s responsibility wrongly. And I suggest that this is
what is at the bottom of the issue of the morality of the offer
of the kingdom and the other points discussed above. Keep
in mind that the morality issue really is involved also in the
giving of the law as well as the coming of Christ to His own.
Now, it so happens that in a reply to B. W. Newton, J. N.
Darby addressed one of his errors, the reply to which meets
the issue under discussion here. It is as if he were replying to
John Gerstner. J. N. Darby wrote:
I believe that the author has not known how to distinguish
responsibility and the purposes of God. I believe that
Christ came seeking fruit on Israel and found none -- that
He was presented to their responsibility. He piped to them
and they would not dance.
But the reasoning of the author proceeds from his not
seeing that, had He been received, it would have proved
that there was good in man -- that man was not in an
absolutely lost state, just as his keeping the law would.
Whereas his rejecting Christ proved, not only that man’s
flesh would not keep the law, but that even the goodness
of God, and sending Messiah, and sending His Son, and
32. Calvin’s Commentaries 19:175, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
33. Ibid., 17:125.
I suggest that the ‘moral issue’ is a bogus one, resulting
from reasoning upward from what a finite Calvinist should
and should not do in his own affairs to what the sovereign
God can and cannot do. It is the mind of the flesh intruding
itself into the sovereign God’s using his exposure of the total
ruin of man in the accomplishment of His eternal purpose in
Christ. Moreover, the trial of the first man, and the end of
that trial in the cross, is not understood.
It is of the same character as the Arminian who says that
God cannot violate man’s (alleged) freewill; who says that
God looked down the avenue of time, saw that I would choose
Christ, and therefore chose me. 36 A Calvinist who raises
such a moral issue thinks God is at the center of his thinking
about the issue, but it is man that is really at the center,
limiting God by what man should and should not do. The
difference with the Arminian is that in the Arminian’s case the
man centered reasoning is more obvious.
36. See my Free-Will; or, Not of Him that Willeth, to be had from the
publisher.
74
Does the Amillennial
View Make God a Liar?
Let us consider several statements by the amillennialist, O. T.
Allis:
What here concerns us is the phrase “thy people.” From
the Old Testament standpoint this passage like Jeremiah’s
[Jer. 30:7] might be regarded as referring exclusively to
Israel. But we have seen that the New Testament gives a
larger meaning and scope to Old Testament prophecies
which seem to be restricted to Israel . . . . 38
Observe that the first quotation grants that the prophets could
be understood literally. The godly Jew really had no other
choice than to understand the prophets literally. It is the New
Testament which allegedly gives a larger meaning and scope.
Old Testament prophecies might be regarded as referring
exclusively to Israel. And how was the godly Jew to know
that it only seems that way and there was going to be a New
Testament that would give a “larger meaning and scope”? If
the meaning and scope were enlarged, what was the meaning
and scope in the Old Testament before it was enlarged in the
New Testament? Tell us the meaning, and the validity, that
the O. T. unenlarged scope had? What was Daniel to
understand by “thy people” (Dan. 9) before this term was
allegedly enlarged? This raises the question -- was God
deceiving Daniel and the Jews?
So, after all, God did tell the Old Testament Jews that
there would be a literal kingdom, and the expectation of it
was right. We have seen in a previous chapter that the Lord
and the remnant believed in such a kingdom. They had the
Old Testament prophecies about it. Recall the preaching of
the twelve concerning the kingdom (Matt. 10:7) which was
discussed earlier in that chapter. Would it not be immoral to
have the twelve preaching about a literal kingdom when the
Lord knew it was a spiritual kingdom? If, and since, as we
have seen, they expected a literal kingdom, it follows they
preached a literal kingdom. If, then, there is a question of the
morality of God involved, the problem is with those who deny
that there will be a kingdom such as the prophets did, in fact,
prophesy. This raises a morality of God issue, based on the
arguments we have been reviewing. The O. T. prophets did
prophesy in terms of a literal kingdom and thus God deceived
the people of Israel into thinking there would be a literal reign
of Messiah, when He had no such intention that there would
be such a reign. Moreover, Christ Himself sent His disciples
to preach a kingdom that was the wrong kingdom!
Enough. I suggest that those who have complained about
the morality issue have not solved it. Their issue is a false
one that involves themselves in the very objection they have
raised. It is they themselves who are in the position of
making God a liar. It is particularly sad that those who speak
so much about the sovereignty of God and the “total
depravity” of man cannot find therein the answer to their own
objections.
God knew men would break the law; yet He gave it, that
what was in man’s heart might be manifest. God knew
that Israel would, by their sins, forfeit the land of
Canaan, and have to be scattered, as at present. He told
them that He knew this before He brought them in (see
Deut. 31:16-21). Still, He brought them in. He knew
that they would reject the prophets and messengers by
whom He spake to them, and offered them forgiveness
and mercy, if they would but repent (see Ezek. 3:7-9).
Nevertheless, He sent them, rising up betimes and
sending. Was their responsibility diminished by God’s
foreknowledge of the manner in which they would treat
the messengers of His mercy? Surely not. So when, last
of all, He sent His Son, sent Him as the One born to be
King of the Jews, He knew all that they would do unto
Him. From the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, to
the last taunt that was addressed to the holy Sufferer on
the cross, God foreknew all.
Why should this hinder Him from presenting the
kingdom to them, and offering them its felicities and its
glories on condition of their repentance, any more than
the foresight of their failure under any former test should
have hindered Him from applying it? God would make
manifest what man, what Israel, was, and so appealed to
them in the most affecting way, through the medium of
the hopes which, for so many generations, had been
indulged by them as a nation -- hopes based on the
prophecies . . . . And they understood that Jesus claimed
to be the One Whose coming was the object and center of
their natural hopes. The superscription in Latin and
Greek and Hebrew, placed over the cross by Pilate, told
plainly enough that it was as King of the Jews He was
rejected by the nation. Thank God, He did foreknow
what they in the hatred of their hearts would do. Their
sin has thus been overruled to our salvation: their fall
has become our riches. In due time, when the church has
been formed and perfected, and caught up to meet its
Head in the air, when all the “mysteries of the kingdom”
have had their accomplishment, Israel, as we have seen,
humbled and broken-hearted, shall say, Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of Jehovah; and the kingdom shall
be established manifestly and in power. “O the depth of
the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” 39
What if Israel Had Accepted?
It is best to avoid “what if” inquiries for the purpose of
figuring out what might have occurred. Why waste time on
what if Adam hadn’t sinned; or, what if he had eaten of the
tree of life; or, what if Satan had not fallen; or, what if
Abraham had not left Ur; or, what if Israel had kept the law;
or, what if the Lord had not been crucified; etc. etc. God
utilizes a Pharaoh, a Balaam or a Judas. He is sovereign and
works His own pleasure. He sends a judicial blindness, too
(Isa. 6:9-12; Rom. 11:25), always in His own moral way,
consistent with what He is in His nature. The Judge of all the
earth does right and known unto Him from the beginning are
all His works.
Conclusion for Part 2
The main points that we have established from Scripture are
these:
1. We saw that several texts of Scripture expressly inform us
that the mystery involves the body of Christ, the church, and
that silence was kept in the past concerning the mystery.
2. We reviewed some truths concerning the church and saw
its distinct character as called to sit in the heavenlies in Christ
Jesus.
3. According to the way the OT prophets spoke, their words
indicated that there would be a temporal kingdom under
Messiah. Thus, the Jews were led, and rightly so, to expect
a literal kingdom.
4. We saw from the record in the Gospels that the remnant
expected a literal kingdom. The preaching of John the Baptist
and of our Lord confirmed this expectation.
5. The presentation of the kingdom was bound up with the
acceptance of Christ and with repentance. Thus the
presentation of the kingdom, as bound up with His Person,
constituted a moral test of the state of the Jews, the result of
which was to bring into relief the total ruin of man. It was
part of God’s sovereign ways to glorify Himself in Christ,
utilizing that very ruin of man, to unfold His purpose in the
cross.
6. The proclamation of the kingdom as at hand is meanwhile
in suspension, while Christ has taken His place in glory, as
man, and become Head of one body.
*****
We will now turn to the subject of the earthly parenthesis of
judgment in Israel’s history, and the heavenly parenthesis
regarding the church.
75
76
Chapter 3.1: The Gentile Parenthesis of Judgment
77
Part 3:
The Two Parentheses
In Part 3 we will examine the subject of the two parentheses, which we touched on previously. These two parentheses, the
earthly, Gentile parenthesis of judgment on Israel and the heavenly parenthesis of saints seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus,
are illustrated on the chart below.
In Part 3 we will also examine L. S. Chafer’s idea that there is a “church age” intercalated in the Mosaic age. This will
entail an examination of his claim that the law is presently gone. All of this raises the matter of the violation of the basic truth
that the testing/probation of the first man, man in Adam fallen, in his standing before God, ended at the cross. The end of the
testing will be discussed in some detail. The Scofieldian age-ism system is not Scriptural. Dispensational truth is illustrated on
the several charts in Part 3, as well as in the previous charts.
The Two Parentheses
A
IN PP E
GL AR
O IN
RY G
60
5B
C
THEEARTHLY PARENTHESIS
OF JUDGMENT ON ISRAEL
THE HEAVENLY
PARENTHESIS
One New Man
(Eph. 2:12)
The Mystery
Christ & the Church
SI N
AI
69 WEEKS
THE CHURCH IN
RESPONSIBILITY
(Rev. 2 and 3)
1 WEEK
THEKINGDOM IN MYSTERY
THE MILLENNIUM
Eph. 1:10
KINGDOM IN POWER
THEHEAVENSRULE ( Dan. 4:26)
MOST HIGH RULES(Dan. 4:32)
THETIMESOF THEGENTILES (Luke 21:24)
THE DAY OF THE LORD
THISAGE (Matt. 12:32; Eph. 1:21)
THE AGETO COME
(Mark 10:38; Heb. 6:5)
THE DAY OF GOD
THE HEAVENLY CALLING
(Heb. 3:1)
78
Part 3: The Two Parentheses
Chapter 3.1
The Gentile Parenthesis of Judgment
Introduction
A parenthesis “( )” takes place in a sequence (just as this
parenthesis does) without otherwise affecting it. The word
“parenthesis” was used in the early 1800's in connection with
the unfolding of dispensational truth, to indicate something
that God has brought about in connection with a sequence of
His dealings. There are two of these parentheses. One has to
do with the heavenly sphere of God’s glory in Christ; and the
other is connected with the earthly sphere of God’s glory in
Christ. Recall that God has ONE purpose: to glorify Himself
in Christ -- and this glory will be displayed in two spheres,
the earthly and the heavenly (Eph. 1:10).
The Earthly, Gentile
Parenthesis of Judgment
In this chapter we will consider the wider of the two
parentheses, 1 namely, the earthly one, the Gentile parenthesis
of judgment upon Israel. 2 Israel will be at the center of
God’s display of His glory in Christ in the ‘earthly places’
during the millennium. The setting aside of Israel and the
removal of God’s throne from Jerusalem is an interruption in
the development of God’s ways in government in the earth.
Of course, this interruption is part of God’s ways with man
for His own glory.
This period has been called a “parenthesis” because it is
a period of time during which God’s “reign” in Israel is in
abeyance. Though government was introduced with Noah,
the administration of God’s direct government in the earth
through kingship began with David. Saul’s reign was
provisional. By that I mean that it was something provided
by God, in response to the people’s request for a king, in
1. As can be seen in the chart above, there is a parenthesis within a
parenthesis.
2. W. Kelly, An Exposition of Isaiah, London: Hammond, 1947 reprint, p.
155. In Lectures Introductory to . . . the Minor Prophets, London: Broom,
1874, he called it “the parenthesis of Gentile empire.” See also Collected
Writings of J. N. Darby 2:53 (1830); The Bible Treasury 11:180,181; 12:8;
9:344; The Prospect 1:148.
order to bring out the state of the people. 3 His choice was
Zion and David (Psalm 78:65-72). The throne of David
(B.C. 1011) and Solomon (B.C. 971) was called the throne of
Jehovah (1 Chron. 29:23). This was the seat of God’s direct
government in the earth. David and Solomon together are a
type of the Lord Jesus as coming from heaven (Rev. 19) to
conduct the war of the great day of God the Almighty (Rev.
16:14) and then to reign as the Prince of peace.
But Solomon, who sat on the throne of Jehovah (1
Chron. 29:23), was unfaithful (1 Kings 11). So God
chastised the nation through the division under Jeroboam
(B.C. 931) and the kingdom split in two (1 Kings 12). Still,
the throne of Jehovah remained at Jerusalem. After a while
the 10 northern tribes (often called “the house of Israel” and
sometimes “Ephraim”) were taken captive by the Assyrians
(B.C. 722). And finally rebellious Judah was taken captive
by Nebuchadnezzar (B.C. 605/604). A 70 year captivity of
Judah then commenced (Jer. 25:1-14; 29:10), a year for each
sabbath year not kept for 490 years (2 Chron. 36:21). The
end of this 70 year period did not, however, restore the
kingdom to the house of David in Jerusalem.
The capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was used
by God to bring to an end God’s direct government in the
earth through Israel for much more than 70 years. The
removal of this direct government is reflected in Scripture in
several ways:
1.
Notice that in the book of Daniel God is referred to as
“the God of the heavens”; notice also the statement,
“the heavens do rule” (Dan. 4:26).
2.
In a vision, Ezekiel saw the Shekinah remove (Ezek.
10:18; 11:22). The time will come when it will return
(Ezek. 43:1-7; 44:1). During the interval of its
absence, the heavens rule rather than God exercising
direct government in the earth in Israel.
3. There is something analogous to this concerning Shiloh, where the tent
of meeting (the tabernacle) was located, until God’s choice of Jerusalem
was manifested (1 Chron.20:18-22:1; Psalm 78:65-72). Shiloh was
provisional, to bring out the state of the people.
Chapter 3.1: The Gentile Parenthesis of Judgment
3. God pronounced Israel to be Lo-Ami, meaning “not my
people” (Hosea 1:9). They are not outwardly owned as
His people from then until a coming day when they will
be called Ammi, meaning “my people” (Hosea 2:1).
4. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream (Dan. 2) in which an
image depicted four Gentile empires. This image depicts
Gentile rule from Nebuchadnezzar until the smiting stone
falls upon the feet of the image and smashes it. Christ is
the smiting stone and when He comes from heaven (Rev.
19) to conduct the war of that great day of God the
Almighty (Rev. 16:14), He will bring Gentile dominion
to an end and reign before His ancients in glory (Isa.
24:23).
5. Daniel had a dream (Dan. 7) in which these four empires
are depicted in their beastly character.
6. Our Lord called this period the times of the Gentiles
(i.e., of the nations; Luke 21:24).
These conditions exist during the time designated by “the
Gentile parenthesis of judgment.” It is a time of Gentile
dominion brought as a chastisement, a judgment, upon Israel,
but it will come to an end when God establishes His King
upon His holy hill of Zion (Psa. 2). This will end the period
when God is not directly exercising government in the earth
in Israel.
Failure Made Good by Christ
The failure of kingship in Israel led to this parenthesis of
universal Gentile dominion. Behind this failure was God’s
purpose to have the people of Israel representatively in the
land (though under Gentile dominion) when Christ came the
first time, in order that Christ might be universally rejected
by Jew and Gentile. 4 Thus, at the end of the 70 years
captivity, a remnant returned to the land (Ezra). Though not
outwardly owned as before, as when the throne of Jehovah
was in Jerusalem, God continued to work with this people
(see Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi) in
view of the great test He would bring to pass connected with
the Son come in holy manhood. This test, meant to bring out
the state of the people and the state of the Gentile power -brought out the irremedial state of the first man (1 Cor.
15:47). The rejection and crucifixion of Christ led to the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matt. 22:7; Dan. 9:26).
Meanwhile, there is now “a remnant [of Jews] according to
election of grace” (Rom. 11:5). These are part of the body
of Christ, looking at them in one relationship, and are also
called “the Israel of God” when distinguished from believing
79
Gentiles (Gal. 6:16).
All wherein man has failed will be made good for God’s
glory in the second Man. Even the failure in kingship will be
made good; for Christ will reign, reign perfectly, during the
millennium, and deliver up the kingdom to God (1 Cor.
15:24). All others had to have rule taken away from them.
He, the Servant-Son, will glorify God in government in the
earth, perfectly so, and then deliver up the kingdom to God.
What a wonderful Person He is!
So the earthly, Gentile parenthesis of judgment, which is
the times of the Gentiles, began with the taking of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadnezzar and will end with the deliverance of
Jerusalem when our Beloved, our Lord Jesus Christ, comes
to set up God’s direct government in the earth in Israel. The
smiting stone will come from heaven and grind to powder he
on whomsoever He falls. The image will be smashed and that
smiting stone will fill the earth (Dan. 2). Then shall the
knowledge of Jehovah cover the earth as the waters cover the
sea.
When the Christ is manifested who [is] our life, then shall
ye also be manifested with him in glory (Col. 3:4).
Oh, to walk here in the little remaining time so as to please
Him! Think of Him Who is our life, and Him with Whom we
are joint heirs. We shall be manifested in glory with Himself
when He comes in the clouds of heaven with all His holy
myriads to reign before His ancients in glory. Then shall our
Beloved have His rightful place here where He humbled
Himself to the lowest. Rich in glory, He stooped to the
unspeakable depths of the three hours when the Holy One
Who knew no sin not only bore our sins in His own body on
the tree, but what was far deeper, was made sin for us.
Everyone that humbles himself shall be exalted in due time -and who so, and justly so, as our great Exemplar.
4. Government was in the hands of the Gentile at this point in time and thus
the rejection of Christ involved rejection by the Gentile power, the
governmental power depicted by the image of Daniel 2. In the middle of
Daniel’s 70th week governmental apostasy will take place along with the
Jewish apostasy and the apostasy of Christendom.
80
3.2: The Heavenly Parenthesis
81
Chapter 3.2
The Heavenly Parenthesis
The Designation
“The Heavenly Parenthesis”
Those who hold dispensational truth are often accused of
teaching that God has two purposes. Perhaps some have said
such a thing, but the fact is that God has one purpose: to
glorify Himself in Christ. But the display of His glory in
Christ involves two spheres: the earthly and the heavenly.
Israel especially is connected with the manifestation of God’s
glory in Christ in the èarthly places,’ while the body of
Christ is especially connected with the manifestation of His
glory in Christ in the ‘heavenly places.’ Psa. 8 speaks of the
Son of Man having dominion in the earthly sphere. Thus that
is not one of the N. T. mysteries. But Eph. 1:10 tells us that
Christ will head up all things, both the earthly and the
heavenly. That Christ should head up the heavenly sphere
was not revealed in the O. T.
The calling of the saints now is not part of the
development of the ways of God in government in the
èarthly places.’ Israel was, and will be, connected with that
government in a special way. The body of Christ has not
replaced Israel, nor is it the (spiritual) continuator of Israel.
The body of Christ is not an earthly people as Israel was, and
will be, but rather a heavenly people with a heavenly hope.
The Lord Jesus was “a minister of [the] circumcision for
[the] truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers;
and that the nations should glorify God for mercy . . .”
(Rom. 15:9). So both Israel and the nations will be blessed.
Note well, though, that Israel -- the nation, as such -- will be
blessed. Why, Scripture expressly declares, and does so after
Christ was exalted above, that the covenants belong to Israel,
Paul’s kinsmen according to flesh! (Rom. 9:4, 5). Yet, right
in the face of the express words of God, antidispensationalists
will affirm that the New Covenant is for the church (and that
is why they transmute the church into ‘the spiritual Israel’).
The death of Christ specifically provided for the future of
Israel as a saved nation (John 11:51, 52). The rebels having
been purged (Ezek. 20), all Israel shall be saved (Rom.
11:26; Isa. 60:21).
places.’ Concerning salvation, Israel will stand under the new
covenant, with the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins (Jer.
31:31-34; Heb. 8:10-13). Concerning government, the One
Whose precious blood is the basis of their blessing under the
new covenant, will reign. God will be glorified in Him in
direct government in ‘earthly places’ in Israel. Christ will
reign before His ancients in glory (Isa. 24:23) and so Israel
will be the head while the nations will be the tail (Deut.
28:13, 44).
Viewed, then, from the standpoint of the development of
God’s ways in government in the earth and of Israel’s
knowledge of salvation (Heb. 8:10-13), when all Israel is
saved (Rom. 11:26) and stands before God in national
adoption (Rom. 9:4), when the knowledge of the Lord will
cover the earth as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11:9), when
the Lord alone is exalted (Isa. 2:11), etc., etc., the millennial
reign of Christ is an immense advance, a great upward step,
compared to Israel’s and the Gentiles’ positions in the O. T.
times. This is easily apprehended by those not given to
spiritually alchemizing the statements of the prophets. Leave
out the body of Christ (as connected with the heavenly
parenthesis) and the immense upward step is quite clear.
Non-millenarians think of the millennium, as understood
by us, as a retrograde, a downward, step -- because it is lower
than Christian privileges. But this argument is based on
refusing the truth that the body of Christ is connected with a
heavenly parenthesis in the development of the ways of God
in government in the earthly sphere. Such think of the church
as the “spiritual Israel” and so there will be nothing after the
church. But this is what Judaizes -- not dispensational
truth.
We now come to the matter of designating the time
during which the heavenly company is being formed. How
shall we designate the present period?
We want to speak of it in some way; just as we speak of
the Trinity, though the word Trinity is not found in Scripture,
yet the truth of it is.
And so, under Messiah the millennium will be a great
upward step and advance regarding God’s ways in ‘earthly
82
W. Kelly called it “a heavenly parenthesis.” 5 This
designation nicely contrasts it with the wider, Gentile
parenthesis of judgment which has to do with the earth and
with Israel. He also called it “the Gentile parenthesis of
mercy” 6 and “church parenthesis.” 7 I suggest that the best
is “the heavenly parenthesis.” During the Millennium mercy
will go out to the Gentiles also and so “the heavenly
parenthesis” distinguishes more sharply; moreover, “church
parenthesis” does not directly address the fact that the body
of Christ is heavenly. However, the description, “a heavenly
parenthesis,” contrasts well with the earthly hopes of the
nation of Israel, and denotes that there is a special, heavenly
people now being formed for His glory in Christ in the
heavenlies.
We have noted previously that the period from B.C.
605/604, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem until the time
of the appearing of Christ to smite the Gentiles is the period
our Lord called “the times of the nations” (Luke 21:24). It
is depicted by the image in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar
(Dan. 2). This was called the Gentiles parenthesis of
judgment because this is a period during which God’s direct
reign in Israel is in abeyance. We noted that after B.C.
605/604, God continued to work with Israel, though they
were not owned outwardly as His people, being under the
sentence Lo-ami, until that work ceased in connection with
the rejection of Christ. This brought about another
parenthesis, the heavenly parenthesis, from Pentecost to the
rapture. After the rapture, God will commence dealing with
Israel again, though they still will not be outwardly owned,
the heavenly parenthesis that interrupted such dealing with
Israel having been terminated at the rapture. Thus there is a
parenthesis within a parenthesis; a heavenly parenthesis within
a wider earthly parenthesis.
The heavenly parenthesis is not a subject of the O.T.
prophecies. The O.T. prophecies about Gentile blessing will
find their fulfillment in the millennium, the 1000 year reign
of Christ. Except for the citations concerning the birth, life,
death, resurrection and session of Christ at Jehovah’s right
hand (Psa. 110:1, etc.), the texts quoted from the prophets by
the N. T. writers are millennial in fulfillment, but are used by
the N. T. writers for a principle or partial application
meanwhile concerning the ways of God.
The OT Prophecies Allow
Room For The Heavenly Parenthesis
Daniel 9:24-27. This Scripture has been considered in detail
in Daniel’s 70 weeks and the Revival of the Roman Empire. 8
It is one of those signpost Scriptures, so to speak, that,
properly understood, point the reader to a premillennial
understanding of prophecy; i.e., that there will be an earthly
kingdom, preceded by the advent of the King. Briefly, 69
weeks of years (483 years) have passed from the decree to
restore and build Jerusalem (i.e., the walls would be rebuilt),
given in Neh. 2., until the Sunday on which the King rode into
Jerusalem (Matt. 21:5). The last week (7 years) is yet future
and will just precede the second advent of the king. The
heavenly parenthesis occurs during this interval between the
first 69 weeks and the last week.
Psalm 110:1. Here we see that Jehovah said to Adonai (our
blessed Lord Jesus) that He should sit on His right hand until
He makes Adonai’s enemies His footstool. This allows room
for the heavenly parenthesis to occur. During this heavenly
parenthesis Adonai (cp. Matt. 22:41-46) is not on His own
throne but sitting at Jehovah’s right hand, as Psalm 110:1 says.
Rev. 3:21 states: “He that overcomes, to him will I give to sit
with me in my throne; as I also have overcome, and have sat
down with my Father in his throne.” The Lord Jesus is not yet
on His own throne -- though opposers of dispensational truth
seek to assure us otherwise. But the time will come when He
will sit on His own throne (a figure of speech for His reign).
“But when the Son of man comes [or ‘shall have come’)] in his
glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit down upon
his throne of glory . . .” (Matt. 25:31). If there were a
Scripture that stated Christ was on His own throne of glory
now, it would have long ago been produced. The Scriptures
are clear: He is not on His own throne now. Meanwhile we
are part of the heavenly parenthesis -- waiting for, and with
Him.
Daniel 7. The four beasts of Dan. 7 parallel the four sections
of the image of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as found in
Dan. 2. In his dream, Daniel “beheld till thrones were set, and
the Ancient of days did sit.” Christ is not sitting on His throne
now (Rev. 3:21). The time seen in the vision has not yet
arrived. But there is room left for the heavenly parenthesis.
After the close of this parenthesis these thrones will be set.
Amos 9:9-11 and Acts 15:13-18. Amillennialists and
postmillennialists believe that the “tabernacle of David” is set
up now and that Christ is on His throne now. But the
rebuilding of the tabernacle of David will occur in the
millennium. In Acts 15, James cited the passage against
Jewish bias; to show that God intended to bless the nations.
And, of course, He will do so according to many prophecies.
But James saw that this prophecy had a bearing meanwhile on
6. An Exposition of Isaiah, London: Hammond, p. 155, 1927 reprint.
8. Obtainable from the publisher.
3.2: The Heavenly Parenthesis
the Jewish prejudice against Gentile blessing. What was
happening in James’ day was not inconsistent with God’s
purpose, which included Gentile blessing. He cited the passage
in order to show this. He did not cite it as if it was fulfilled,
or fulfilling, in his day. Note that this is a general character of
many citations from the prophets in Acts and the Epistles.
What is cited is millennial in fulfillment, but has a bearing on
some matter meanwhile. Acts 15:13-18 will be taken up in
some detail in Chapter 4.6. Here we merely note that before
the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David there is room for the
heavenly parenthesis.
Hosea 3:4-5. “For the children of Israel shall abide many
days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice,
and without statue, and without ephod and teraphim.
Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek Jehovah
their God, and David their king; and shall turn with fear
toward Jehovah and toward his goodness, at the end of days.”
It certainly seems clear that Israel has been in this condition for
a very long time. Nothing is said about the forming of one
body, formed by the Holy Spirit and linked to a glorified Head
in heaven. But it is clear that room is left for the heavenly
parenthesis.
Isaiah 61:1-2 and Luke 4:16-20. Isa. 61:2 says: “to
proclaim the acceptable year of Jehovah, and the day of
vengeance of our God. . . .” Our blessed Lord Jesus read
from this passage and did not read the emphasized phrase. It
was not the time for Him to then proclaim “the day of
vengeance of our God” (Luke 4:19). But He will do so in its
own due season when He comes forth from sitting at Jehovah’s
right hand (Psalm 110:1-3; Rev. 19:11-21) to conduct “the war
of [that] great day of God the Almighty” (Rev. 16:14).
Between these two proclamations there is room for the
heavenly parenthesis.
Zechariah 11:12-17. The 30 silver pieces foreshadow the
price of the true Shepherd of Israel, Who was slain by the
nation -- through the instrumentality of the Gentile power. But
God will give them another, “a foolish shepherd,” even the
Lawless One who will do his own will. “Little children, it is
[the] last hour, and according as ye have heard that antichrist
comes, even now there have come many antichrists, whence
we know that it is [the] last hour” (1 John 2:18). This is the
final Antichrist of prophecy. Between the murder of the true
Shepherd of Israel and the manifestation of the “foolish
shepherd” there is room left for the heavenly parenthesis.
Daniel 11:35-45. Dan. 11:1-35 speaks of things historically
accomplished. Not so Dan. 11:36-45. The king of Dan. 11:36
is one against whom the king of the south (Egypt) will push
(v.40); and against whom the King of the North (Assyria, at
least) will come as a whirlwind and overflow. The wilful king,
whose territory lies between Egypt and Syria, is the (false) king
of Israel. The Lord had warned that another would come in his
own name and he would be received. This wilful king is the
foolish shepherd, the Lawless One, the final Antichrist.
Between verses 35 and 36 there is room for the heavenly
83
parenthesis.
Daniel 8:22, 23. We have just seen that “at the time of the
end” (Dan. 11:40) the wilful king (the Antichrist) will be
attacked by Egypt and overrun by the king of the North
(Assyria). Dan. 8 shows us the he-goat (Greece) with a great
horn (Alexander the Great) suddenly broken off and four
horns, representing four kingdoms (v. 22) replacing the one
horn. Alexander’s empire was divided among his four
generals. One held Egypt and is the king of the South.
Another held Assyria and he is the king of the North. The
geographical notices are referenced with respect to the location
of Israel. There is an immense gap of time between verses 22
and 23. In v. 23 the prophecy speaks of “the latter time of
their kingdom, when the transgressor shall have come to the
full, a king of bold countenance,” etc., will arise, who will be
broken by the Prince of princes. This king is not the
Antichrist. He is the final king of the North. At any rate,
there is a gap of time between verses 22 and 23 that leaves
room for the heavenly parenthesis.
Hosea 5:15. “I will go away, I will return to my place, till
they acknowledge their trespass, and seek my face: in their
affliction they will seek me early.” Jehovah came down, came
in holy manhood. Jehovah-Jesus came to save His people from
their sins (Matt. 1:21), and surely the day will come when by
the working of sovereign grace He will turn away ungodliness
from Jacob, and so all Israel shall be saved (Rom. 11:26, etc.).
Meanwhile the Son of man has ascended up where He was
before (John 6:62), until that people acknowledge their greatest
trespass of all and seek His face, that face in which the creature
dared to spit. It was the only sinless face this fallen world has
ever seen. They dared to pull the hair from His face. Yet the
day will come when they will know that “His cheeks are as a
bed of spices, raised beds of sweet plants; His lips lilies,
dropping liquid myrrh” (S. of S. 5:13). Oh, how they will
acknowledge that great trespass (Zech. 12:10-14)! It is God
Who will act sovereignly from Himself (Ezek. 20:37, 38), to
bring about a repentance suitable to His own glory and moral
ways and to bless them under the new covenant. Meanwhile,
there is room for the heavenly parenthesis.
Other Scriptures. The reader will also find, if he is willing
to find, a gap in Luke 17 between verses 21 and 22. Also he
would find this in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Even the
feasts of Jehovah (Lev. 23) allow room for the heavenly
parenthesis. The first four feasts have been fulfilled but the
last three will yet occur. The first four feasts occurred in the
first and second months of the year and the last three in the
seventh month. The seventh month foreshadows the summing
up of the ways of God. The period between Pentecost and the
summing of God’s ways leaves room for the heavenly
parenthesis.
84
Chapter 3.3: “This Age” and the Heavenly Parenthesis
85
Chapter 3.3
“This Age” and
The Heavenly Parenthesis
Introduction
28:20.
We saw that the O. T. prophets prophesied an earthly kingdom
under Messiah and that this is the kind of kingdom a Jew had
rightly to expect. We have also seen that the Jews and the
remnant expected a literal kingdom as the O. T. prophets had
prophesied; and that our Lord endorsed that expectation. We
also found that this kingdom was presented in the Person of the
lowly and meek One Whom the remnant received but the mass
did not. God offered the kingdom in the form of a moral test
of the people at large, knowing, of course, the depravity of the
human heart and that His Son would be rejected. We
considered the moral implications of such an offer, too. The
temporal kingdom is therefore postponed, in accordance with
God’s purpose of glorifying Himself in Christ. Meanwhile,
during the Gentile parenthesis of judgment upon Israel, while
they are Lo-Ammi, God is doing another work: namely, the
forming of a heavenly company blessed with all spiritual
blessings in the heavenlies in Christ -- during a period we call
“the heavenly parenthesis.” 9
God’s purpose is to glorify Himself in Christ in two
spheres: the heavenly and the earthly. When the kingdom is
manifested in power Christ shall head up both the heavenly and
the earthly (Eph. 1:10). The accusation that dispensational
truth teaches that God has two different purposes is a figment
manufactured in the minds of opposers.
3.
The age to come: Matt. 12:32; Eph. 1:21; Mark 10:30;
Luke 18:30; Heb. 6:5.
Previously we considered the Gentile parenthesis of judgment
upon Israel (i.e., the times of the Gentiles). Our Lord lived
here during that parenthesis and spoke of “this age.” It was
the Mosaic age preceding the introduction of the earthly
kingdom.10 Note, then, that the Gentile parenthesis of
judgment upon Israel did not change the age!
But more, the introduction of the heavenly parenthesis
also did not change the age. Several epistles refer to it as “this
age” after the introduction of the heavenly parenthesis.
Observe, then, that “this age” (the age introduced by the giving
of the law) is still in progress. It will come to an end, of
course, when “the age to come” (i.e., the millennial age -- the
dispensation, or administration of the fullness of times (Eph.
1:10) is introduced. There is a short period just preceding the
introduction of that administration which brings to an end “this
age.” It is called “the completion of the age.” This work does
not alter the fact that “this age,” which has to do with the
earth, existed before the Lord came, was in progress when He
was here, is in progress now, and will be completed after the
rapture; and when this age is ended, the earthly parenthesis of
judgment will close. But if this is all true, and it is, what about
the change introduced with John the Baptist?
This Age
We considered this in Part 1, but will recapitulate here
concerning three expressions found in Scripture concerning the
word age:
1.
This age: Matt. 12:32; Eph. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor.
4:4; Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 6:17; 2 Tim. 4:10.
2.
The completion of the age: Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3;
9. Someone called my attention to an article in the Baltimore Evening Sun
(May 8, 1989), “Israeli Rabbis Prepare for Return of Temple,” in which it
was said, “‘All Jewish history as far as we’re concerned is one big
parenthesis until the Temple is returned,’ says Rabbi Nahman Kahone of
the Temple Institute.”
The Announcement by
John the Baptist
Verily I say to you, that there is not arisen among [the]
born of women a greater than John the Baptist. But he
who is a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is
greater than he. But from the days of John the Baptist
until now, the kingdom of the heavens is taken by
violence, and [the] violent seize on it. For all the
10. Concerning “this age” J. N. Darby remarked that it was “a perfectly
well-known phrase among the Jews who spoke of olam-hazeh, this world
or age, and the olam-havo, the age to come, the latter being the time of
Messiah’s reign” (Collected Writings 10:360). See also Collected Writings
24:12, 19, 45, 78; 25:244; 8:13,14, 22; 13:155, 156.
86
prophets and the law have prophesied unto John (Matt.
11:11-13).
The Law and the prophets [were] until John: from that time
the glad tidings of the kingdom of God are announced, and
everyone forces his way into it (Luke 16:16).
These texts do not mean that prophecy had no further fulfillment
after John came preaching. There were, for example,
prophecies of Christ’s death and resurrection that were fulfilled
after John was dead. And so it is in the case of the law. There
were types in the law that Christ fulfilled in His death. “For all
the prophets and the law” indicates the whole of what we call
the O. T. I suggest that the point is that the law and the
prophets pointed toward the coming kingdom; John announced
it. Thus, these passages do not mean that the end of the
prophets and the law arrived at the point in time that John began
preaching. But this does mean that a change was impending.
This was a period of transition. The kingdom had not yet
commenced, of course (else John would have been in it and not
compared with the least in it).
In Matt. the rejection of Christ is marked in chapter 12
when the religious leaders said that He wrought by the prince of
demons -- thus committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, Who
was the true power that wrought in Christ. 11 In Matt. 13, the
parabolic form of teaching about the kingdom began -- but the
form of the kingdom to be introduced was changed. It would
take a mystery form (Matt. 13:11), i.e., a form unforeseen by
the prophets and the law. This, in the development of God’s
ways, was consequent upon Christ’s rejection by the leadership
from Jerusalem committing the sin against the Holy Spirit.
The preaching of the kingdom up to this point of rejection
was not about the mystery form but about the kingdom in
power. This includes Matt. 11:11-13. “A little one in the
kingdom of the heavens” refers to one in the kingdom in power,
what we call the millennial reign of Christ. As J. N. Darby
remarked:
The introduction in testimony, of the kingdom, made the
difference between that which preceded and that which
followed. Among all that are born of women there had
been none greater than John the Baptist, none who had
been so near Jehovah, sent before His face, none who had
rendered Him a more exact and complete testimony, who
had been so separate from all evil by the power of the
Spirit of God -- a separation proper to the fulfillment of
such a mission among the people of God. Still he had not
been in the kingdom: it was not yet established; and to be
in the presence of Christ in His kingdom, enjoying the
result of the establishment of His glory, was a greater
thing than all testimony to the coming of the kingdom.12
The moral state suitable to the kingdom (Matt. 5-7) 13 was quite
at variance with the state of the people generally and especially
11. The sin against the Holy Spirit was the sin that these men committed in
saying that the power that wrought in Christ was of Beelzebub.
12. Synopsis 3:59.
13. There are moral features brought before us in Matt. 5-7 suitable for those
in the kingdom in mystery now; but not all is suitable for the Christian.
the leaders (with a few exceptions). The “violent” are those
who break through all that which spiritually opposed entry into
the kingdom. This does not refer to physical violence, but to
those who at all personal cost would lay hold of that kingdom
with its blessedness under Messiah’s reign before His ancients
in glory.
To return; my point is that John’s announcement of the
coming kingdom did not put an end to the law and the prophets
(cp. Matt. 5:17 and J. N. Darby’s footnote in his translation).
There yet remains the kingdom in power “to fulfil.” John had
announced it as at hand; and so had our Lord likewise. But the
kingdom in power is “postponed,” but not because God did not
know Christ would be rejected.
God presented the kingdom in the Person of the meek and
lowly Lord Jesus -- One Whom lost man would certainly reject.
And through this rejection, and consequent upon His exaltation
in glory at the Father’s right hand, He has taken the position of
Head of the body formed at Pentecost by the Spirit sent down
upon those who had received Him (Acts 2:32, 33; 1 Cor. 12:13,
etc.). This unity of the saints with the Head in heaven is the
great mystery of Christ and the church -- unforeseen by the
prophets (Rom. 16:25, 26; Col. 1:26; Eph. 3:9). The
kingdom pointed to by the law and the prophets will yet be
established by the crushing power of the stone of Daniel 2 after
God’s present work of forming a heavenly people is completed.
Concerning the law, we do not read that it has died. But
the Christian is dead with Christ (Rom. 6:8). The law does not
apply to a dead man (cp. Rom. 6:7) but, “Now we know that
the law [is] good if anyone uses it lawfully, knowing this, that
law has not its application to a righteous person . . .”
(1 Tim.1:9).
Still, the law as a dispensation does not appear to be in
force since the law-giver, Jehovah, having come down here in
holy manhood, was crucified. At any rate, Scripture shows that
the Christian is not under the law of Moses in any way
whatever, a subject on which a few further remarks are in order
at this point. The system that puts the Christian under the ten
commandments as the rule of life finds it necessary to transmute
the seventh day sabbath into the Lord’s day sabbath -- else how
have all ten? You see how spiritual alchemy is an amazing
thing.
Galatians does, in spite of all contradiction, oppose putting
the Christian under law for any purpose; and speaks, not of
fulfilling the law of Moses, but of “the law of Christ” (Gal.
6:2). The law of Christ is not the law of Moses. The law of
Christ is the rule of the new creation:
For [in Christ Jesus] neither is circumcision anything, nor
uncircumcision; but new creation. As many as shall
walk by this rule, 14 peace upon them and mercy, and
upon the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15, 16).
14.“6"<T< (kanon), rule, standard, norm,” The New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology 3:339.
Here, believing Gentiles and believing Israelites 15 (“the Israel
of God”) are directed to the law of Christ, namely, the rule,
the norm, the standard, of the new creation of which Christ in
resurrection is the Head. The law-of-Moses-minded do not
seem to comprehend this and call us antinomians (i.e, without
law). The rule of the new creation is for those who ought to be
here in this world to give expression to the will of the Head of
the new creation, Christ Himself. This rule of the new
creation is the law of Christ. The law of Moses was addressed
to those who stood in Adamic responsibility. Our standing is
“in Christ.”
New Characteristics of this Age
During “this age” the Lord Jesus was rejected. His crucifixion
marked the end of the testing of the first man (man in the lost,
Adamic standing of responsibility). Since His rejection, Satan
is called the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4). The true God has
been rejected. And “this age” is now for the Christian “this
present evil age” (Gal. 1:4). Demas forsook Paul, “having
loved the present age” (2 Tim. 4:10). How well it is for us to
“love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8) which will display the rights
and glory of Christ in “the age to come,” i.e., the millennium.
What Is ‘The Present Dispensation?
In many, many places J. N. Darby (and others) spoke of the
present period as a dispensation, speaking conventionally.
However, I commend to your meditation the following.
The church is not, properly so called, a dispensation. It is
the assembling together the co-heirs in unity, whilst the
kingdom is in mystery. When the law ends as a
dispensation, the kingdom is not yet established in power,
and all is in transition. Here the saints are seen above,
and the throne of God is in relation with the earth.16
The Church, properly speaking, the body of Christ, is not
a dispensation, it does not belong to the earth; but there
is an order of things connected with it during its
sojourning here below -- an order of things whose
existence is linked with the Church’s responsibility. 17
Notice that in both cases he used the word “properly,” as in the
next citation below. And we are seeking at this point to be
more exact so as to enlarge our understanding, not merely
gliding along on a scheme that regards a dispensation as “a
period of time during which . . .” and sets up a neat scheme of
seven while leaving out the essential subject of the development
of the ways of God in government in the earth, not
apprehending the true meaning of the heavenly parenthesis and
other concomitant truths. Besides that, man (the first man) is
15.The expression, “the Israel of God,” refers to believing Jews. Theology
has transmuted the Israel of God into the church. If the Lord will, this will
be examined in Part 4.
16. Collected Writings 5:15, (1842).
87
no longer under probation (under testing) since the death of
Christ. Why do some, then, speak of man being tested now
with respect to “grace” since the first man is no longer under
testing since the cross? It is because of erroneous notions
about the character of dispensations accompanied by defective
views regarding the end of testing the first man, who no longer
has a standing before God, and the consequences of this great
change.
At any rate, dispensations have to do with the earth, not
with a heavenly company.
I pass over the time before the flood, whose general
character offers a sad contrast to the time when
righteousness dwells in the new heavens and the new earth,
without a government to maintain it and make it good
against the opposition of an adverse nation or the weakness
of a failing one. Neither one nor the other can properly be
called dispensation. They are both another world from that
in which we live.
With Noah we begin the course of dispensation, or of
the manifestations of the ways of God for the final bringing
out the full glory of Christ. These ways regard the earth,
and are founded, so far as they are conferred blessing, on
the sacrifice of Christ. 18
Really, this is not a dispensation. The Jews had a “this
world” and “a world to come,” “this age” and an “age to
come.” Messiah was to bring in the “age to come.” The
age of the law went on and Messiah did come, but they
would not have Him, and the whole thing stopped: then
comes the church between that and His second coming;
and this is why I said this is not strictly a dispensation, but
when Messiah comes again, it will close this time, and
then will be the last day of this age.
The times of the Gentiles in Daniel, and the parenthesis
of the church, are not at all contemporaneous; for the
times of the Gentiles began in Babylon, being the times of
the four Gentile beasts in Daniel. The times of the
Gentiles will not end at the same time with the church, but
go on a little after we are caught up. The temple of
Jehovah on earth was set aside when the people were
carried to Babylon, and they never got the ark again, but
a remnant of them was spared to present to them Messiah.
I know what a person means by “the dispensation of the
kingdom of heaven,” but we belong to a heavenly thing in
an interval, and there are no dispensations in heaven. The
kingdom of heaven is a dispensation, the dispensation of
the gospel is an administration. 19
The fact that “this age” is still proceeding does have a bearing
on the way we should think of the period we are in.
And hence it is also that this present time is called (not I
judge a dispensation, but) a parenthesis, because the Lord
Jesus speaks of “this age” when He was upon earth, as
the same as that which will close by judgment at the end;
but this was a period connected with His relationship with
88
Jews, and which will not be closed till He again is present
in person; whereas, in the interval, the Church of the
first-born has been gathered for heaven. 20
To me the world now is not under any dispensation, but
the whole course of God’s dealings with it are over until
He comes to judgment. 21
The dispensation of the law will be followed by the
administration of the fullness of times (Eph. 1:10), the
millennial reign of Him Whose right it is to reign. Observe that
the covenant of the law will be followed by the New Covenant.
The blood of the New Covenant has already been shed, but it
will be made with the house of Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31;
Heb. 8:7-13), 22 not the church. There are certain blessings for
Israel under the new covenant that we share. We already have
the blood and the forgiveness of sins as our own, on the basis
of our oneness with Christ, not by covenant. 23 And thus we
are able ministers of the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3) without being
under it. These things are sovereignly given of God. The Law
demanded; the New Covenant gives, and gives by grace. To
contrast the two covenants, may we not say that the law and
law-works go together, and the new covenant and grace go
together? 24
It is true that Paul received an “administration of the grace
of God which has been given to me towards you” (Eph. 3:2).
Call it a dispensation of the grace of God, if you will. That
does not change the fact that Paul was not given “a time period
during which man is tested . . . .” Properly speaking, we are
not in a dispensation; not in “the dispensation of grace.” Paul
had an administration to discharge and he did discharge it. This
involved the mystery, which is beyond the grace that Israel will
experience in the millennium, of course. But none-the-less,
grace 25 will characterize God’s dealings with Israel in the
millennium; and a blessed Israelite may say, this is indeed the
dispensation of grace (having a position greater than John the
20. Collected Writings 13:155 (1850).
22. Rom. 9:1-5 declares that the covenants belong to Israel and this is
complemented by the statement that Gentiles are strangers to the covenants
of promise (Eph. 2:11-12). Zacharias, filled by the Holy Spirit, prophesied,
and his prophesying shows that the Abrahamic covenant (the promises to the
fathers) was not yet fulfilled and that it applied literally to Israel (Luke
1:67ff). Scriptures such as Ezek. 20:33 ff, Isa. 66:8 and Rom. 11:26, Rom.
15:8 all point to the same thing.
23. Just as dispensations have to do with the development of the ways of God
in government in the earth, so covenants have to do with the earth, not with
a heavenly company now being formed. Indeed the Noahic covenant
involved the introduction of government in the earth and marks the first
dispensation.
24. Good works are formed by, and flow from grace. Thus they are lifeworks, not dead-works.
25. . The grace experienced now is poured forth from a Man in the glory of
God (Acts 7:56), shining out from His face, so that it is “the radiancy of the
glad tidings of the glory of the Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4). The grace experienced
by Israel in the millennium will be of a much lesser order, but vastly greater
than what O.T. Israel had. The least in that kingdom will be greater than
John the Baptist. In the development of God’s ways in the earth, this is a
vast step upward.
Baptist). And as far as God’s dealings with an earthly people
are concerned, that is true.
Observe again J. N. Darby’s remark: “To me the world
is not under any dispensation, but the whole course of God’s
dealings with it [with the world; with the earth] are over until
He comes to judgment.” 26 Dispensations have to do with the
earth, not with a heavenly people. No, the administration
committed to Paul does not contradict this. This was toward
those composing a heavenly company during the heavenly
parenthesis, while “this age,” begun in the time of Moses,
continues on. We are not part of this age, though “there is an
order of things connected with it [the church] during its
sojourning here below -- an order of things whose existence is
linked with the Church’s responsibility.”
Dispensations began with the introduction of government
in the earth after the flood. A distinguishable time period is not
necessarily, strictly speaking, a dispensation. Abraham to
Moses is such a time period when calling was introduced but I
doubt that, strictly speaking, that is a dispensation. There is the
Mosaic dispensation and also the millennial dispensation.
At any rate, speaking conventionally, ‘dispensation of the
Church’ would at least distinguish from Israel’s blessings, by
grace, in the kingdom under the New Covenant in contrast to
the covenant of law.
So there has not been a change in the age; and it continues
while God’s formation of the heavenly company is in progress.
The kingdom as Messiah’s reign has not been inaugurated; but
rather, in God’s ways, consequent upon the rejection of Christ,
the manifested kingdom has been “postponed” and the mystery
form of the kingdom introduced, during the time of which, God
is forming the heavenly company. 27
26. Our Lord said, “Now is the judgment of this world.” This also
indicates a change, though “this age” proceeds. The judgment has not
fallen on the world yet and will not while the heavenly company is being
formed. It is for the Christian “this present evil age” (Gal 1:4) and Satan
is its god (2 Cor. 4:4). What manner of persons ought we to be while we
await the Savior? Doctrine is meant to form our behavior, not entertain
our intellect.
27. The Kingdom in its mystery form will run beyond the rapture up to the
appearing of Christ in glory.
Notes on the Chart,
The Interposed Heavenly Calling
Government and Earthly Calling . As may be seen on the chart, the heavenly
calling is interposed in the earthly calling of Israel . When Israel had both the
earthly calling and government committed to her, Israel stood as a nation, a
nationally recognized people by God . But due to sins, Jerusalem was given over
to the Gentiles, to whom government was transferred . This governmental power
is depicted in the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Dan . 2) . This image
coincides with the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21 :24) . It has been well said that
Daniel was the prophet of the times of the Gentiles . These times began with
Nebuchadnezzar's taking of Jerusalem and continue until the Lord appears in
glory as the smiting stone . Consequently, He will take the governmental power
and be king, as well as Melchizedek priest, upon His throne (tech . 6 :13) and
Israel will again have governmental power . Then once again the earthly calling
and government will be reunited and Israel will again be the national, earthly
people, acknowledged such by God . The chart shows these epochs on the line
beginning with "Israel is Ammi ."
No Gap In the Image . Is it really too much to suggest that in his dream
Nebuchadnezzar did not see a gap in the legs of the image? Really, there is no
gap in the image -- no gap in the times of the Gentiles . Those times have been
running uninterruptedly.
No Gap In the Age . There is no such thing as an "Age of the Church," as if the
church forms an earthly age among the earthly ages . The church is a heavenly
thing . The Christian has a heavenly calling (Heb . 3 :1) . So the chart shows the
Mosaic Age continuing on until it is superseded by the "age to come" (Matt.
12 :32 ; Eph . 1 :21 ; Mark 10 :30 ; Luke 18 :30 ; Heb. 6 :5) . The phrase, "the end of
the age" (Matt . 13 :39, 40, 49 ; 24 :3 ; 28 :20) refers to time after the removal of the
church . It is not the end of the alleged "Church Age," since it occurs after the
removal of the church ; it is the end of the Mosaic Age, which is what "this age"
refers to (Matt . 12:32 ; Eph . 1 :21 ; 1 Cor . 2 :8 ; 2 Cor . 4 :4 ; Gal . 1 :4 ; 1 Tim . 6 :17 ; 2
Tim. 4 :10) . The "end of the age" is the end of the Mosaic Age . There is no such
thing as an intercalated "Church age," that being a device to save the "Church
Age" idea by an intercalation that stops the Mosaic Age and then reinstates the
Mosaic Age where it left off -- including, of course, the Mosaic System, as such.
Separation of Earthly Calling and Government . When the "times of the
Gentiles" began, Government was removed from Israel, but not the Earthly
Calling . Though Government was removed from Israel, Jews still had that status
of Calling, and God continued working with Jews . This continued until the
rejection of Christ at the cross . Meanwhile, Daniel's 70 weeks (Dan . 9) started.
They have in view the bringing in the blessing for Israel (Dan . 9 :24) . But there
is a gap between the 69th and 70th week . The rejection of Christ at the cross, and
the consequent introduction of the heavenly calling, interposed both Israel's
Earthly Calling and Daniel's 70 weeks . When the Heavenly Calling is ended, the
70th week will commence and the Earthly Calling of Israel will be found with the
elect, godly, Jewish remnant that God will form after the end of the Heavenly
Calling, to prepare the remnant for the reception of the Lord from glory.
No Reinstatement of Sacrifices by God During Daniel's 70th Week.
While the elect Jewish remnant will have Earthly Calling, that does not mean a
reinstatement by God of the Mosaic System, with its attendant standing of the
first man . The standing or the first man was once-for-all ended at the cross . It is
clear from Hos 3 :4, 5 that Israel is declared to be without sacrifice many days -really, until the King comes . They will have no valid sacrifices until the
Melchizedek priesthood (millennial) is exercised, a priesthood founded upon the
finished work, thus characterizing the sacrifices, carried on as under that
priesthood, as founded on the finished work -- hence they are memorial . 1 The
sacrifices in the first half of the 70th week are not acceptable to God . God had
once had'His armies destroy Jerusalem and the invalid sacrifices (Matt . 22 :7) . In
the 70th week God owns what the temple, altar, and worshipers mean as to the
spiritual significance of those words 2 (Rev . 11 :1, 2), in spite of the gross
departure of the mass . There can be no sacrifices of the Mosaic System and the
Aaronic order acceptable to God.
The Law Did Not Dle . The Mosaic System, which gave the first man a
standing before God, has ended . That left the age and the law itself go on.
Neither has been interposed. Meanwhile, the Christian is viewed as having died
with Christ (Rom . 6) and the Mosaic law does not have to do with a dead
Christian . Moreover, the Christian is heavenly, as Christ is (1 Cor . 15 :48), In the
millennium, under the new covenant, Israel will have the law written in their
hearts (Heb . 8 :10) . Meanwhile, we Christians are under the law of Christ (Gal.
6 :2), the rule of the new creation (Gal . 6 :14-16).
The Christian Does not Have Government . As the chart indicates,
Government was transferred from Israel to the Gentiles . It remains right there
until Christ takes it when He appears in glory . The Christian does not have
government (Phil . 3 :20) . Indeed, the Christian is a stranger and a sojourner
here (1 Pet . 2 :11), as well as an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor . 5 :20).
I . Though sons of Aaron (particularly the sons of Zadok (Ezek . 40-48)) will officiate, they
do so under a new order of priesthood: the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ.
2 . 'The measuring is symbolic. Moreover, the worshipers cannot go into the temple . The
scene is in the last-half week, when God's portion is those who worship in heart (v . I) and
the rest are rejected (v . 2) while the testimony of the two witnesses proceeds (v . 3ff) .
CHART HERE THE INTERPOSED HEAVENLY CALLING
89
90
BACK OF INTERPOSED
MEANWHILE
Notes on the Chart
SUSPENSION OF THE KINGDOM ANNOUNCEMENT
The two pink colored rectangles illustrate periods during which the gospel of the
kingdom is preached . The first period is composed of two phases ; phase one is
the period during which John preached, having come in the spirit and power of
Elijah (Luke 1 :17), as the forerunner of Messiah . After John was in prison, the
Lord also announced the kingdom as at hand -- until, as we see in Matt . 12, the
power of the Spirit working in Christ was attributed to Beelzebub . This
attribution was the unpardonable sin . Then in Matt . 13 the parables of the
kingdom in mystery were given by the Lord, indicating a change in testimony -from the advent of the kingdom to the coming introduction of a mystery phase of
the kingdom -- unforeseen by the OT prophets . Thus, the announcement of the
kingdom as at hand was suspended . This is what is meant by "the postponement
of the kingdom ." The kingdom was presented in the form of a moral test, as
embodied in the meek and lowly One, and this brought out the state of the first
man, in the persons of the Jews . Messiah was rejected . The gospel of the kingdom
will again be preached during Daniel's 70 th week, illustrated by the second pink
rectangle -- and Christ will subsequently appear in glory.
"The time is fulfilled" (Mark 1 :15) refers to a period of time . The Lord said
this in connection with the commencement of His preaching the kingdom as at
hand, consequent upon John's preaching having come to a close . I understand the
phrase to refer to that period of time occupied by John's preaching, as forerunner.
He had completed his work as forerunner of Messiah -- "the time is fulfilled" -leading to the moment for Messiah Himself to preach the kingdom as at hand.
SUSPENSION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE AGE TO COME
The commencement of John's preaching, i .e ., the breaking forth of prophetic
utterance after centuries of silence, marked the arrival of the epoch preparatory
to the close of the Mosaic age ("this age") and the introduction of the "age to
come" (Matt . 13 :39, 40, 49 ; 24 :3 ; 28 :20) ; i .e ., the millennium, the time of
Messiah's reign before His ancients, in glory . However, this epoch was not
actually followed by the introduction of the age to come . The introduction of the
age to come is in suspension -- and the age merely goes on . "This age" (Matt.
12 :32 ; 1 Cor. 2 :8 ; 6 :17 ;Gal . 1 :4 ; Eph . 1 :21) is the Mosaic age, which began at
Sinai . We are in a period characterized by the suspension of the introduction of
the "age to come ." The Mosaic age merely continues on . And, we are in a period
referred to as "the end of these days" (Heb . 1 :2) . The epoch called "the end of
these days" commenced with the breaking forth of the prophetic ministry of
Messiah's forerunner, John . But Messiah was rejected, and the introduction of the
"age to come" is in suspension ; and "the end of these days" continues on during
this suspension . And thus "the end of these days" will still be there when the
announcement of the kingdom as at hand is recommenced in Daniel's 70 th week .
During the prolonging of "this age," i .e ., the Mosaic age, and the prolonging of
"the end of these days," and the suspension of the gospel of the kingdom, God
has introduced the heavenly calling (Heb . 3 :1) and has unfolded the secret hidden
from the OT prophets, even the mystery (Rom . 16 :25, 26 ; Col . 1 :26 ; Eph . 3 :9).
The trial of the first man ended at the cross and God has subsequently established
the Second Man in His proper place and sphere . "This age" has received from
God a new characterization, consequent upon the end of the testing of the first
man : it is "this present evil age" (Gal . 1 :4) . Also, Satan is now declared to be its
god (2 Cor. 4 :4) . Moreover, since the close of the testing of the first man, God has
pronounced this conclusion : the whole world lieth in the wicked one (1 John
5 :19).
God had been dealing with the world up to the cross ; dealing with it in the
testing of the first man while he had a standing in the flesh . That the test involved
the persons of the Jews does not change this fact . It was the first man that was
being tested! -- in that Jewish form . The testing having been concluded . God's
direct dealings with the world are in suspension until Christ appears in glory to
deal with the world directly . Meanwhile, the Christian is heavenly (1 Cor. 15 :48),
though one could not tell that from the conduct of most Christians!
CHRISTIANITY NOT AN AGE, NOR AN AGE OF TESTING OF MAN
Christianity is not an age among the earthly ages . There was no change in the age
at Pentecost . The coming of the Spirit did not inaugurate a new, earthly age . He
came to unite believers in one body to Christ, the Head, in heaven . There is no
earthly (or heavenly!) age of grace . That is a theological figment at war with
dispensational truth -- setting aside such important truth as the completion of the
testing of the first man at the cross ; pretending, even, that man was not fully
tested by grace, when He who is "full of grace and truth" (John 1 :14) was
presented to the first man, in the persons of the favored Jews . Grace and truth
were hated : "they have both seen and hated both me and my Father" (John
15 :24) . It is an insult to Christ to say God is now testing the first man by grace.
THE KINGDOM NOT AN AGE OF TESTING OF THE FIRST MAN
We are aware that, particularly as presented in Matthew, the first man was tested
by the presentation of the King, as well as by the Kingdom as embodied in Him-a moral test for the first man that he would indubitably fail ; and this was part of
the ways of God to bring His eternal purpose to pass, and glorify Himself in
Christ in the two spheres : the heavenly and the earthly (Eph . 1 :10) . The
millennial kingdom, then, is not a testing of the first man . The testing was
completed at the cross, hence the introduction of all that follows are things based
upon the completion of the work of Christ, His resurrection, and His glorification.
The millennium is the display of God's glory in Christ, in the earthly sphere,
where Christ glorified God . John 17 ; Psa . 150 .
CHART HERE: SUSPENSION OF THE AGE TO COME
91
92
BACK OF CHART HERE
Chapter 3.4: The Christian Under a New Head
93
Chapter 3.4
Romans 5:12-21: The Christian Under a New Head
Adam-innocent is not viewed in Scripture as the head of a race; Adam-fallen is the head of a race. The testing of man began
after the fall. It is the testing of fallen man, the first man as fallen, to see if he could be reclaimed. The one command under
which Adam innocent stood in the garden of Eden was not part of the testing of fallen man. Adam had a law; and Adaminnocent stood under that law. That law for Adam-innocent is not part of the testing of fallen man. Rom. 5:13 says: “for until
law sin was in the world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law.” World, here, refers to the world under the
headship of Adam-fallen. “Until law,” without the definite article the, means -- until God brought fallen man under testing
by law, law as a principle of relationship and standing before Himself for fallen man. The fact that Adam had a law before
he fell from innocency does not alter the fact that:
from the time of the expulsion from Eden, “until law,” fallen man was not, during that period, under test on the
principle of law as a basis of relationship and standing, with God.
Under Moses, fallen man, in the persons of the Jews, were dealt with on the basis of law. This was a new character of standing
for man in the flesh. The standing for (fallen) man in the flesh, and the testing of (fallen) man in the flesh, ended at the cross.
The law did not then ‘die,’ was not “nailed to the cross,” and was not abrogated. The testing and standing of the first man, fallen
man, man in the flesh, ended at the cross. That did not change the fact that each individual is responsible to God, and now
all men everywhere are responsible to repent. The believer now is dead with Christ and dead to the law.
94
Introduction to Rom. 5:12-21
The standing, the position, of the first head, i.e., Adamfallen, as under trial/testing/probation, to see if he was
recoverable, ended at the cross. Consequent upon the work
of Christ on the cross and His resurrection, the Lord Jesus
took the place of the last Adam. These two Adams are heads
of two races.
Notice particularly that on the chart above, the ‘testing”
of Adam-innocent 28 is not included in the area of the chart
denoted as “fallen man under testing.” Obviously, Adaminnocent was not under ‘testing’ as a fallen person. And
though Adam-innocent was God’s appointed head on earth, in
Eden, he fell and was no longer Adam-innocent. He was now
Adam-fallen and was removed from Eden. Adam-innocent
never was the head of an innocent race. As fallen, he became
the head of a fallen race, outside of Eden.
The testing of man is the testing of fallen man. The
testing of Adam-innocent is not part of this -- That was its
own thing. Adam had a test of obedience, being in a state of
ignorance of good and evil. The testing of fallen man is a test
of those having the knowledge of good and evil, which Adam
did not have. The two cases essentially differ.
It is erroneous to make the ‘testing’ of Adam-innocent
part of a testing of man scheme as C. I. Scofield did. It shows
a grave lack of understanding the nature of the testing of man
to place the ‘testing’ of Adam-innocent in the series of testings
of fallen man. 29
The standing of fallen man in Adam means a standing of
fallen man in Adam-fallen. It is Adam-fallen, then, who is the
head of a race, a fallen race -- as derived from Adam-fallen.
The testing of the first man means the testing of the first man
as fallen. All in Adam are ranged under a head that is a fallen
head. The testing, then, begins outside of Eden; and it ends
at the cross, for fallen man was found incorrigible and
unrecoverable and rejected even the revelation of the Father
in the Son, even Him who was full of grace and truth. Thus
the first man had no longer a standing before God and
subsequently God established a new head, the last Adam.
On the chart above, the reader will notice Epoch 1 and
Epoch 2. In connection with the testing of the first man, fallen
man, there are two great epochs from the time of Adam’s fall
to the cross. The first is the epoch during which the first man
was not under trial by law; and the second is the trial under
law -- law as a principle of God’s relationship with man in the
flesh.
Persons have sinned and are guilty. This is dealt with in
the first part of Romans (Rom. 1 - 5:11). The next major part
28. “Innocency“ is meant to convey ignorance of evil, his state before the
fall.
29. And the error is kept up in the Scofield age-ism system by continuing
testing of man after the cross.
of Romans (Rom. 5:12 - 8) deals with sin in the flesh, the
nature from which sinful acts spring.
Coming now to the first subject (Rom. 5:12-21) taken up
in the second part of Romans (Rom. 5:12 - 8), observe that
there was a disobedient man and an obedient Man. The
Christian, when a sinner, had been under the headship of the
first Adam; now he is under the headship of the last Adam
(Cp. 1 Cor. 15:45). The subject here is not that of an
anomalous state such as we see in Rom. 7, but about the
Christian being under the headship of Christ. The subject is
not about the new creation, or about the body of Christ. As
JND remarked:
We have no allusion to the bride, or union of that
character here, but it is the individuals all seen in their
head. We get then the doctrine of these two men, from vv.
12-18, sources of life to all connected with them, and the
obedience of one, and the disobedience of the other,
constituting us righteous or sinners, though each of us may
have added his own sins. 30
Another matter to observe is the difference between the
bearing of something towards all, and the application of it
upon someone. This is what we see in Rom. 3:22 regarding
the righteousness of God towards all, but upon those that
believe. There is something similar in Rom. 5:18 where we
read “towards all.” That refers to the tendency, the bearing,
the direction. In Rom. 5:19, we twice read the words “the
many”; in the first case it refers to the many sinners; in the
second case ‘the many” means believers. Adam has involved
all his race in sin and its results, while Christ involves all
under Him in blessing.
The first (Rom. 1 - 5:11) and second parts (Rom. 5:12 8) of Romans answer to the two inquires of God in Genesis 3,
but the treatment in Romans is in the reverse order in which
God asked the two questions:
1. God asked Adam where he was. Looking at Adam
morally, and not merely where he was hiding
geographically, we may see this question directed to the
matter of where he was morally. He was in a new state:
sin and death were now working in Him. The matter of
indwelling sin is dealt with in Rom. 5:11 - 8.
2. The next question concerns what had been done -- the
act. The matter of sins and guilt is dealt with in the first
part of Romans (1 - 5:11).
It has been noticed that in Part 2 the blood of Christ is not
mentioned. His death is brought to bear as the answer to sin
in the flesh, sin within us. This is seen also in the treatment
of justification in parts 1 and 2 of Romans.
We will now consider Rom. 5:12-21 in three sections.
SECTION 1: Rom. 5:12: the entrance of sin and death; the
human race involved in Adam’s sin.
12 For this [cause], even as by one man sin entered into
the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned:
“For this [cause], or, as W. Kelly, “on this account,” refers
to what was unfolded concerning sins and guilt, and God’s
remedy for those things, in Rom. 1 - 5:11. But more than that
is involved. While not developed in Rom. 1 - 5:11, there is
a state in which man is, that underlies what is described there.
He is characterized by “sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). God
must also deal with that state. So now in Rom. 5:12 - 8 we
enter on this matter of the state being characterized by sin in
the flesh, and the power over the person that sin within
exercises. God not only clears us from guilt, He brings us
into a new standing as alive in Christ: “justification of life”
(Rom. 5:18). 31
The apostle brings before us the matter of death being
brought into the world under Adam’s headship as the effect of
sin. The fall of the head introduced sin and the consequent
death. It was through Adam that sin entered the world as
ranged under his headship. It is not a question of what might
have been before Adam. Into that world over which he was
head, death by sin was introduced into it by its head.
Moreover, “thus” death passed upon all men. Death is the
pervasive witness that sin is everywhere in the race of Adam
fallen. Adam-innocent was capable of dying, but not subject
to death. Fallen, he became subject to death -- and that is
what “mortal” means. The Lord Jesus was that holy thing
(Luke 1:35), yes, meaning His humanity was not innocent but
holy. Moreover, the Son took holy humanity into His Person,
and while capable of dying by an act of His own, in obedience
to the Father (John 10:18), He was not subject to death -- not
mortal.
“For that all have sinned” is evidenced by death having
passed upon all men. Death is the wages of sin. Thus men’s
own sins are noted as having to do with death, and not
merely, or only, Adam’s sin. But an evil nature was
introduced into the race under Adam through the fall. Men
sin; and death is here connected with their sins. Nor does this
phrase mean that in Adam all sinned. Regarding the words
“for that,” W. Kelly wrote:
’+N’ ø does not mean “in whom”; nor is there warrant,
while translating these words correctly, to add to the
sentence that all died in the person of Adam. The point
beyond all prominent is the way in which one man may
affect the world. 32
The evil, then, is traced to the fountainhead, past the law, past
Abraham, past Noah, even to Adam, thus involving the entire
race under him. Note, then, that it is not the law of Moses, or
31. See Collected Writings 13:206ff.
32. Notes on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Romans, in loco.
95
law-breaking of the law of Moses, which is the issue here.
What About Infants and Idiots? Read Matt. 18:10-14.
Their “angels behold the face of my Father.” Moreover, “the
Son of man is come to save that which is lost” differs from
Luke 19:10 where the words “to seek” are added. It is
suggested that Luke indicates an active wandering while
Matthew provides for those under the age of accountability,
as it is often called. And as JND remarked about this matter:
The work of Christ is available for them; He had come to
save that which was lost . . “Lost” speaks of our
condition; “guilty,” of what we have done. 33
We may think of this also:
Jesus the Lord shows us very clearly that the God who
gave the law is greater than the law itself, and that God
was showing Himself in Divine grace to be much greater
than in judgment. The judgment of God is a solemn
certainty; but the grace of God a still deeper truth. God
manifest in the flesh, God present upon earth in the person
of His own Son, shows us what God feels about little
children. The disciples did not like to be troubled with
them. They thought it was too bad to take up their great
Master*s time with mere children. How did the Lord
answer it? He took them up in His arms and blessed them
-- a good lesson for the disciples. How often they want the
Lord to correct their inadequate notions! If the Lord took
up and blessed little children, does it not tell me what God
feels about them. He does not bless little children on earth
to send them dying to hell. But if they lived to rebel
against His word and against His Son the Lord Jesus, if
the children when grown up dare to despise Him that died
on the cross, if they refuse to accept the Savior proclaimed
in
their ears, is there anything God resents more strongly?
34
What is the Relationship of the Law to Verse 12? Verse
12 raises a question regarding the fact of sin being in the
world when there was no law. Especially a Jew might be
troubled by this. Before the Apostle continues with v. 12 at v.
18, we have a parenthesis, vv. 13-17, addressing this in vv.
13, 14 and expanding on these matters in vv. 15-17.
SECTION 2: Rom. 5:13-17 (Parenthetic): law not the root
of the evil, nor its remedy; grace the remedy.
Sub-section 1: Romans 5:13-14: Death reigned before
the law was given, because of sin, though sin was not in the
form of transgression.
13 (for until law sin was in [the] world; but sin is not
put to account when there is no law;
14 but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even
upon those who had not sinned in the likeness of
Adam’s transgression, who is [the] figure of him to
come.
33. Collected Writings 30:262; see also 24:166; Things New and Old 21:138.
96
Adam Did Not Have the Law. It should be clear from v.
13 that there was a period in the world’s history when there
was no law as the basis of God’s dealings with man. This
was already seen in Rom. 4:15:
but where no law is neither [is there] transgression.
The testimony of Scripture is uniform about it. The law
came by Moses (John 1:17).
There is a covenant-theology invention that Adam had
the law. Adam had a law, the command concerning the tree.
Is it not obvious that “law” in v. 13 refers to the
introduction of law, through Moses, as a basis of
relationship with the first man in Adamic standing and
responsibility? It does not say ‘the law’ because the point is
about law as a principle of God’s dealings in His ways with
man. We are assured, then, that God was not dealing with
fallen man on the basis of law until He took that up at Sinai.
It is clear that the true basis of man’s ruin is not the
individual’s breaking of the law. If breaking the law was the
basis of man’s ruin, then man was not in ruin all during the
time before law was taken up as the basis of the first man’s
relationship with God. Observe, then, the invention of the
idea that Adam must have had the law, when one thinks that
man’s ruin is founded upon breaking the law. Besides that
false invention, it necessarily leads to a false understanding
of the essence of sin.
It is clear that sin came before the law.
Sin Is Lawlessness, Not the Transgression of the Law.
We see in the KJV of 1 John 3:4 how theology has intruded
into this important statement regarding what sin is. And that
is a very serious thing. To say that “sin is the transgression
of the law” fits with the false idea that Adam had the law,
and really requires that all men were under the law even up
to Sinai. 35 Otherwise there would have been no sin between
Adam and Moses, because there would not have been the
law to transgress. The correct translation of 1 John 3:4 is: 36
Every one that practices sin practices also lawlessness; and
sin is lawlessness.
Sin is the expression of self-will in acting without reference
to the will of God, whether or not His will has been explicitly
expressed. It is the disregard of God’s will. Sin, then, goes
far beyond law-breaking.
Every unrighteousness is sin (1 John 5:17).
In Enoch we see one who pleased God; and Noah was found
righteous. But Cain did a wicked thing in killing Abel. Abel
sensed that bringing an animal sacrifice (death) would please
God. This is one of the symbols of death by which one comes
before God. These persons all lived between the one
command that Adam was given and the giving of law through
Moses.
The Reign of Death Is Universal. Death reigned from
Adam to the giving of the law, proving that sin was there,
for death is the wages of sin -- even on those who had not
transgressed a law.
Sin Is Not Put to Account Where There Is No Law.
Violation of a law is a transgression of that law. Between
Adam and Moses there was no transgression of the law
because the law had not been given until Moses and others
had not the command given to Adam. Sin not being put to
account refers to sin in the form of transgression. A person
cannot be accounted a transgressor when there was no law to
transgress. Sin, as lawlessness, was, of course, present, and
men sinned -- and certainly the reign of death demonstrated
the fact. Verse 12 ended with, “for that all have sinned.” The
sinners committed acts of sin; but that was not put to their
account as transgression of a command.
Another point that shows that sin in the form of
transgression is meant here is the reference to “the likeness
of Adam’s transgression.” Adam had a law and he
transgressed it. Not only was Adam’s sinful act an expression
of lawlessness, his sin also had the form of transgression.
Hos. 6:7 says,
But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there
have they dealt treacherously with me.
35. Recall that Gentiles never were under the law.
36. J. N. Darby remarked:
In the first place (for it is well to give the first place to what is
alleged as scripture) sin is not the transgression of the law. The
translation is a false one, brought about, I doubt not, by this
system of doctrine. The word is used in contrast with being under
law. It is translated differently by the translators themselves
elsewhere. They that have "sinned without law shall also perish
without law," and they that have "sinned under the law shall be
judged by the law." (Rom. 2:12.) Now, what has been translated
"transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4) is the same (as to the
force of the word, only here as an adverb) as what is translated
here “without law” (Rom. 2:12), in contrast to being under it and
judged by it. That is, what has been translated "transgression of
the law," is by the apostle expressly contrasted with it. It is
lawlessness. This is a serious thing. This doctrine as to the law
has led to the falsification of the scriptural definition of sin. I do
not think any honest man will pretend to say that •<@:\" means
transgression of the law, or the same thing as B"DV$"F4H
(continued...)
This does not mean that Adam had the Mosaic covenant, or
the 10 commandments, but that the principle of disobedience
to a command was the common thing in what Adam did and
what Israel was doing under the law. Adam had a law and
Israel had the law. Both transgressed. Between the time of
Adam’s transgression regarding the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil and Israel’s receiving the law, sin was in the
world; and the reign of death was universal, as was sin,
though sin was not in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.
And keep in mind that the Gentiles never were under law
36. (...continued)
<`:@L (CW10:149).
(Rom. 2:12). Perhaps a quotation from JND will be helpful
here:
Sin was in the world from Adam to Moses, when no law
was yet there; but specific acts could not be put to charge
where there was no law forbidding them. The word
"imputed" is another word here from the general word
for "imputing righteousness," and means putting a
specific thing to the account of anyone; (which the other
does not), being found, as already stated, in Philemon 18.
Where no law forbade an act, you could not charge it as
a transgression. Yet death reigned -- the effect and
witness of sin being there -- over those who had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression (that
is, who had not violated an actual commandment, as
Adam did). 37
And that brings us to consider the difference between eternal
punishment and God’s dealings in time.
On the other hand, one sees the world suffering the
consequences of the sins of their fathers; the heathen are
living witnesses of it. God gave them up to a reprobate
mind, Rom. 1:17. Thus we may easily see that we ought
accurately to distinguish between the eternal judgment of
God and His judicial government of the world; for in
reference to His eternal judgment it is said of the
Gentiles-"those who have sinned without law shall perish
without law . . . in the day when God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel"
(Rom. 2:12, 16) -- the gospel which Paul preached. As to
the government of the world, it is said, as to the same
Gentiles, "The times of this ignorance God winked at";
for in truth, sin is not reckoned where there is no law.
Nevertheless death and sin reigned. Here man inherited
the guilt of his fathers, while; in present government, they
were not held responsible for their own acts: they were
so, indeed, as to eternity, according to the light they had
neglected. When God puts Himself in relationship with
any people, and places a testimony in the midst of them in
such sort that the light of the testimony is cast upon the
sin they commit, and in which they continue to walk in
spite of the testimony, then God brings, according to His
government here below, judgment of all that sin upon the
generation which fills up the measure of the evil, so that
there is no more room for patience.
As witnesses of this, see the Jews who rejected
Christ and the testimony of the Holy Spirit: all the blood
which had been shed since the blood of righteous Abel
had to be required of that generation. God had not
required it before; He had enlightened them by His law,
stirred them up by His prophets, warned them by
chastisements, had made an appeal to their whole moral
being by the mission of His Son. The very sins of the
fathers ought to have been a warning to their children to
avoid the same offences, because, after the sins of the
fathers, their offenses were committed in the light. But
they persisted therein, and thus heaped up wrath for the
37. Collected Writings 26:147. See also Collected Writings 21:197; 26:239;
Notes and Comments 5:419.
97
day of judgment; and they had to submit to the
consequences of all this, according to the just judgment of
God. This in no wise prevents each of their fathers having
been and being subject, at the judgment of the dead, to the
consequences of his own individual sin; but the nation, the
system as a whole, the public object of the government of
God in the world has been nudged. 38
Adam [The] Figure of Him to Come.
The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam a
quickening spirit. But that which is spiritual [was] not
first, but that which is spiritual: the first man out of [the]
earth, made of dust; the second man, out of heaven (1 Cor.
15:45-47).
We are seeing that mankind is under the headship of Adam
and is involved necessarily in the fall of the head -- involved
in the consequences of that fall. Adam as a head, points to
someone to come. Another head was coming, the last Adam,
and those under that head would partake of the consequences
of what He did. In the next three verses tell us the
correspondence between these heads but the vastly different
consequences of the respective headships.
The Lord Jesus is designated the last “Adam” rather than
the last ‘man.’ ‘Last man’ does not designate the headship of
a race as does “last Adam.” “The last Adam” is a designation
that covers more than headship of the church. As the first
Adam’s headship covered more than his relationship to Eve,
so Christ’s headship covers more than His relationship to the
church.
Sub-section 2: Romans 5:15-18: correspondence of
headship but contrast of outcome.
15 But [shall] not the act of favour [be] as the offence?
For if by the offence of one the many have died, much
rather has the grace of God, and the free gift in grace,
which [is] by the one man Jesus Christ, abounded unto
the many.
16 And [shall] not as by one that has sinned [be] the
gift? For the judgment [was] of one to condemnation,
but the act of favour, of many offences unto
justification.
17 For if by the offence of the one death reigned by the
one, much rather shall those who receive the abundance
of grace, and of the free gift of righteousness, reign in
life by the one Jesus Christ:)
At the end of v. 14 another head was noted, One to come. In
speaking of these two heads, each of these three verses states a
contrast:
v. 15 a contrast of measure from the respective sources, or
heads: God’s grace abounding;
v. 16 a contrast of the tendency of the acts regarding the
thing communicated: condemned versus justification;
v. 17 a contrast of result: death reigning or reigning in life.
38. Collected Writings 1:332
98
God’s Act of Favor Is as the Offense. Adam, as we saw,
was typical of Christ who was to come. There is a relationship
of Adam to those under his headship. There is a
correspondence to this in the last Adam to those under his
headship. There is a correspondence in the fact that there is a
resultant effect of being under headship; though there is a
contrasted outcome in keeping with the character of the
respective heads. Should not the act of favor under that head
(Christ) be as the offense of Adam in its application; namely,
affecting all under his headship?
The Many. The expression “the many” appears twice. In the
first case it refers to all under Adam’s headship, which, as we
know, is the entire human race. In the second case, “the
many” refers to those under the headship of Christ, the last
Adam. This does not mean the whole human race, of course,
but those under His headship. So all under Adam’s headship
die as a result of his offense in eating of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. The grace of God, etc., has
likewise come to those under the headship of Christ as the last
Adam.
In v. 16 we see that one act, one offense, led to
condemnation. This filled the world with many offenses, but
the one act of favor dealt with the host of offenses. Indeed, the
power of grace vastly exceeds the offenses.
The Meaning of “Offense.” JND commented on the
difference between transgression and the word here translated
offense 39 (sometimes translated trespass). “Offense” is
broader than “transgression,” though a transgression is an
offense. The bearing of this fact here is that all sin from Adam
onward has the character of offense, whether the law of Moses
existed or not. In any case,
For as many as have sinned without law shall perish also
without law; and as many as have sinned under law shall be
judged by law (Rom. 2:12).
. . . for we have before charged both Jews and Greeks with
being all under sin (Rom. 3:8).
All are under sin, all have committed offenses; but those
under law are, in addition, also transgressors of the law.
The Meaning of “Free Gift,” “Gift,” and “Act of Favor.”
JND’s excellent translation attempts to give us in English, as
much as possible, the distinctions made in the original.
39. A"DV$"F4H is positive transgression of a law which exists.
A"DVBJT:" {offense} though applicable to transgressions, is a more
general word and with a different sense.
A"DV$"F4F goes beyond and transgresses an actual law or barrier set
up by God. Hence there must be a law. A"DVBJT:" fails or falls from the
right condition in which we should hold ourselves. Transgressions do this,
but every fault and failure does. This can be without a law. A Concordance
will easily show this. I am not aware of any case where A"DV$"F4H is used
without direct reference to the law (or tradition), unless the verb in Acts 1:25
(Judas B"DX0), and a case where another reading is preferred (Collected
Writings 13:210).
Regarding the gracious acts of God towards believers, he
distinguished several words:
v. 15 “act of favor” (PVD4F:"), “free gift” (*@D,);
v. 16 “gift” (*fD0:"), “act of favor” (PVD4F:");
v. 17 (“free gift”) *TD,H.
The “act of favor”; charisma conveys graciousness in
giving and makes us think of the grace acting in the one
giving it..
The “free gift”; dorea
conveys the freeness, the
gratuitousness, of what is given. It is not earned and not
owing.
The “gift; dorema indicates the thing given. 40
The One Man, Jesus Christ. Adam was the one man in the
one case; Jesus Christ was the other man. The eternal Son
became man, necessarily so in order to die; and rising again, to
take the place of the last Adam. And in accordance with the
union in Him of the divine and human, the value and glory of
His Person was imparted to every human way, word, and work.
This one is the last Adam, the one man, Jesus Christ.
The Judgment Was of One to Condemnation.
The “one” is Adam. And judgment came upon him which will
result in condemnation in eternal punishment. Condemnation is
the result of God’s judgment spoken of in Rom. 2:3 and 3:8.
Condemnation is a state to which all under Adam’s headship
were rendered liable, and indeed will be their state in the lake of
fire. Men stand under judgment right now (John 3:18 -- “he that
believes not has been already judged”). At the great white throne
they will be judged according to their works and the result is
their condemnation
The Act of Favor, of Many Offenses unto Justification.
JND remarked that this is “a gracious gift of a sum of adequate
righteousness, judicially estimated and satisfactory.” 41 The one
offense of Adam led to many offenses. But justification removes
them from before God. Justification goes further than
forgiveness. Justification means the clearing from any charge.
The justification here is not looked at as clearance from sins and
guilt, as in the first part of Romans, but has in view that state of
man as having sin in the flesh which characterizes his life in
flesh. It refers to the character of justification in v. 18 below,
which see: justification of life.
The Free Gift of Righteousness. The righteousness that the
Christian has is not earned by him; hence it is viewed here as a
“free gift.” This is in direct contrast to righteousness which
comes from the law. That would be an earned righteousness by
the first man under testing. JND remarked: “the abstract thing
righteousness given to us, and though taken abstractly, the thing
in its nature and quality.” Concerning the relationship of this to
the righteous requirement of the law being fulfilled in Christians
(Rom. 8:4), he pointed out:
40. These words are discussed in Collected Writings 13:211.
41. Letters 3:436.
As to Rom. 5:17, it is not the same as Rom. 8:4. There
it is the fact that, in walking in the Spirit, the sum of the
requirement of the law (and so only) would be fulfilled,
the *46"\T:". Much more, perhaps; but as the flesh was
not subject to it, that *46"\T:" could not be
accomplished when in the flesh {in the Adamic standing
before God}. But, living in the Spirit, the Spirit of Christ
living in us, the body dead, the sum of the law*s
requirements, so walking, was fulfilled. Against the fruits
of righteousness there was no law. The Christian has a
higher rule -- to be an imitator of God, as manifested in
man in Christ (Eph. 5:1, 2); but as people were looking
for legal righteousness, what is in vv. 2, 3, was the way
of getting it. 42
Reigning in Life. It is true that death had reign over us (v.
14), but we must not therefore conclude that “reigning in life”
means that ‘now life reigns over us.’ There are two mistakes in
this:
1. “Reign in life” does not refer to something reigning over us.
It meas a state of life.
2. In John, eternal life is insisted upon as the present life of the
believer. But in Paul’s writings it is presented as something
entered into at the end of our so-journ here, when the believer
is with Christ. 43 “Reign in life, “then, looks on to the future.
It is our assured portion, as being those who have eternal life
now.
SECTION 3: ROM. 5:18-21: the result of the new headship.
42. Letters 3:463. See his discussion of various words in Greek.
43. In his answer to the new system of teaching fostered by F. W. Grant, W.
J. Lowe wrote:
The first striking difference already apparent between Paul and John,
we may note at once however: John shows the character of the life
in itself, whereas Paul is occupied with the position of the believer,
the sphere in which the life is manifested. “In Christ,” is where God
has set me, and as such has its own proper value in every passage;
it stands, too, in contrast with “in Adam” as the responsible man,
thus introducing us into relationship with God, and into an order of
blessing in which Adam never stood. “In the Son” tells me what the
life is in itself, its nature and being, and only possessed as being in
Him, the Son.
The very verse quoted from Rom. 6, makes the distinction
felt: “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” “Jesus
our Lord,” added to Christ hinders its being a descriptive statement
of what the life is; but it sets forth blessedly the relationship with
Christ, into which we are brought through the grace of God, who
gives us “eternal life.” Moreover the special aspect of eternal life
here, and all through Romans, is that of a state of life into which we
enter at the close, hence future (cp. Rom. 2:7); and “alive unto
God” and “eternal life” are not here synonymous terms. Verse 11,
too, tells us what faith is to reckon, in applying to ourselves what is
absolutely true as to Christ*s position, and so true of us as in Him
and with Him (Col. 3:3). We know Him as Christ, as Jesus, and as
Lord. “In the Son,” on the contrary, tells of relationship with God
the Father, and describes the life of which the Son is the mediatorial
source and dispenser. How can it be said that the expressions are
parallel and employed in the same sense? (Life and Propitiation: An
Examination of Certain “New Doctrines” London: Morrish, pp. 96,
97, 1885).
99
18 so then as [it was] by one offence towards all men to
condemnation, so by one righteousness 44 towards all
men for justification of life.
19 For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the
many have been constituted sinners, so also by the
obedience of the one the many will be constituted
righteous. 45
20 But law came in, in order that the offence might
abound; but where sin abounded grace has
overabounded,
21 in order that, even as sin has reigned in [the power
of] death, so also grace might reign through
righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord.
Verse 18 connects directly with v. 12, vv. 13-17 being
parenthetical. Yet, vv. 18, 19 do summarize what we saw in
vv. 15-17.
“Towards all Men” (v. 18) 46 and “the Many” (v. 19).
The phrase “towards all men,” appearing twice in v. 18,
means that the direction, the bearing, the tendency, of the
respective act by each head is towards all men, the entire
human race. It does not mean that it is necessarily applied to
all men. However, in the case of those under Adam, we have
learned that all men did actually come under the consequence
of his sin. But in the case of Christ, not all are brought under
His headship. So in His case, while the direction of what He
did was towards all men, it is effective only upon some. This
is similar to the righteousness of God, which is towards all,
but upon those that believe (Rom. 3:22). This distinction
should be carefully noted. In v. 19, the words “the many”
does not mean the same thing as “all men” in v. 18. Yes, it
turns out that in one case, Adam’s headship, “the many” that
were constituted sinners coincides with “all men”; but in the
case of Christ’s headship that is not the case. In His case,
“the many” is only those who believe. The bearing of
Christ’s act is unlimited; but its application is particular. In
the case of Adam’s sin, its bearing was unlimited and its
application was unlimited. All under his headship suffer the
consequences. In the case of Christ, those under his headship
44. “. . . ‘one righteousness.’ There cannot be the least doubt that this is the
true rendering. When the apostle would say ‘by the offense of one,’ he uses
a different and correct form, a different one from that which he uses for ‘one
offense.’ Theology may make it ‘the righteousness of one,’ but not Greek”
(Collected Writings 7:284).
45. “Romans 5: 19 is the summary of the argument of the obedient and
disobedient man in contrast with law; and not only so, but declares that the
law came in by the by as a distinct thing. Verses 12, 13, 14, 20, show that the
apostle diligently argues here against obedience, sin, or righteousness being
confined to law-breaking or law-fulfilling” (Collected Writings 10:97).
46. The Greek of this verse is discussed by W. Kelly in his exposition of
Romans, in loco, and this discussion, as well as remarks found in other
sources, are brought together on p. 537 of Two Nineteenth Century Versions
of the New Testament, available from the publisher. J. N. Darby’s article,
“The Bearing of Romans 5:12-21,” (Collected Writings 13:206-212) contains
much detail regarding the Greek of this passage.
100
receive blessing, but sinners are not under His headship. 47
Of course, those under Christ’s headship are removed from
under Adam’s headship.
The gospel is thus preached to all, but the blessing is
only upon those who believe.
One Offense Towards All Men to Condemnation. This
has been discussed, above, concerning v. 16. However, here
(v. 18) it is brought to bear on “all men” concerning the
tendency of Adam’s offense.
One Righteousness Towards All Men. This is not the
‘righteousness of one’ as those who hanker after a legal
righteousness as if there was a transference of Christ’s
righteous law-keeping to the Christian. The “one
righteousness” is contrasted with the “one offense” of
Adam. JND has a discussion of the Greek regarding
righteousness, and says:
But the one .*46"\T:" is the full total, the act which met
the whole requirement . . . It is. . . the full sum of that
needed for my being accounted just. 48
And in the Synopsis:
“. . . even so by one accomplished righteousness (or act
of righteousness) towards all men, for justification of
life.” 49
The work of atonement on the cross was composed of the
sufferings in the three hours, the death, and the shedding of
blood. The infinite value and glory of His person was
imparted to this work as its value and efficacy before God.
This is the “one righteousness” which has satisfied God
regarding the outrage of sin against His nature and His
majesty. This work, this “one righteousness,” is towards
(not upon) all men, for justification of life; just as in the case
of the “righteousness of God” towards all, but upon those
that believe (Rom. 3:22).
Justification of Life. In Ephesians man is looked at as dead
in trespasses and sins. In Romans man is looked at as alive
in sins (and correspondingly, as also alive in Christ 50). In
the first part of Romans justification is connected with the
subject of sins and guilt. There is a clearing of the guilty
47. There is a difference in vv. 18 and 19, concerning which, W. Kelly
remarked:
Here {v. 19} all is explicit result, and not character {as in v. 18};
and hence the article {the} is used in Greek as pointedly as the
preceding verse exhibited the anarthrous construction {no definite
article, “the”}: in both cases with the utmost accuracy, and with
a perfection altogether admirable, with which no writings of man
can compare. Where the apostle speaks of “all men,” the aim is
to show the tendency whether from the first man or from the
Second; where he speaks of “the many,” the definitive effect is
set before us (Romans, in loco).
49. 4:106.
50. I did not say ‘as raised with Christ.’ That we find in Colossians and
Ephesians.
ones by Christ’s work. But there is more than that, even
being brought into a new standing in life before God. In the
second part of Romans justification it is connected with the
matter of sin in the flesh, that internal power and working of
evil found in every child of Adam. Therefore we read of
“justification of life,” which means that we have a new
standing before God concerning the new life that we have.
That life stands in justification before God. W. Kelly wrote:
“And this is the witness that God gave us life eternal, and
this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he
that bath not the Son of Goa hath not the life.” To us it is
made known, as it could not be to an OT saint, and we
therefore know it as they could not. This is fully warranted
to us by the next verse (13) “These things I write [the epist.
aor., or, I wrote] to you that believe on the name of the
Son of God, that ye may know (,Æ*.) that ye have life
eternal.” This conscious knowledge of it, what a privilege
and to us essentially characteristic of Christianity! Nor does
the Epistle close without reminding us that, among other
things consciously known by us, this is one, “that the Son
of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we
should know ((4<.) him that is true; and we are in the true
One, in his Son Jesus Christ: he is the true God, and life
eternal.” How establishing and endearing to us. What a
safeguard against every idol!
It was not the apostle Paul*s work to dwell on the
present gift of life eternal to the believers. The
righteousness and the counsels of God are fully treated in
his Epistles with Christ*s work the basis, His resurrection
and ascension to give them heavenly character, and His
coming to crown all. Hence He speaks of life eternal at the
end (Rom. 2:7, 5:21, 6:22). He does however speak, not
only of reigning in life but of justification of life (Rom.
5:17, 18): a remarkable phrase, and a blessed privilege
which the Christian is meant to enjoy now. It is not
“eternal” only but in risen form and power. Justified by
His blood meets our sins, justified in His risen life goes
farther and meets sin, sin in the flesh, not what we did
evilly but our evil self, in Him dead and risen. Hence we
are called Rom. 6:4 to “walk in newness of life.” This
assuredly does not refer to walking with Christ in white
when in glory, but to present walk here below. But this
implies the life of Christ ours now as truly as then, when
all is complete. It is none other than life eternal. And as
Christ, being raised, lives to God, so are we to count
ourselves dead indeed to sin, but living to God in Christ
Jesus. Such is the virtue of His death and resurrection, as
Rom. 7 states, that, had we been Hebrews of Hebrews, we
were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that
we should belong to another that was raised from the dead,
in order that we might bear fruit to God: an impossible
result without life, life eternal. So in Rom. 8:2 the law, not
of Moses, but “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (cp.
John 20:22) made me free from the law of sin and death,
the communication of Christ*s risen life, the form in which
He now gives life eternal to every Christian. The co-operation of the Holy Spirit in this life is clearly marked, and
that which is now as clearly distinguished as the completion
of His work when the body is raised (10, 11).
51
JND wrote:
As to "justification of life" (Rom. 5:18) it is that
justification we have as being alive in Christ; that is, it
goes beyond mere forgiveness of sins as in the old man
which are put away. It is the clearance of all imputation
which we have as alive in Christ. But the passage gives us
something more specific, it refers to vv. 16 and 17. Verse
16 is "of many offenses unto justification," which of itself
goes further than clearing the conscience of sins. Verse 17
further adds that they who have received "abundance of
grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life."
This, while based on the clearing, brings us into the new
place in life and reigning in it. Hence we have
"justification of life": "by one offense towards all men to
condemnation . . . by one complete righteousness
[*46"\T:"] towards all men to justification" (v. 18); but
then "in life," a new life in Christ -- not merely, that is,
the old sins cleared away negatively, but in the new place
by a work of Christ which God had fully owned. He had
finished the work which His Father had given Him to do,
and was in virtue of it in a new place as Man in life. Life
(in us) and justification went together.
I do not know if I have made myself plain. It does
not go quite so far as the "in Christ," but it does identify
our justification and a new life in Him. 52
The Obedience of One. The doctrine of many is that
“obedience of one” means Christ’s righteous law-keeping.
Christ’s fulfilling the law is supposed to be this obedience.
And thus the Christian’s righteousness comes from Christ’s
righteous law-keeping. In effect, that is a legal
righteousness. Connected with this notion are other ideas,
such as that all men were under the law , and Adam had the
law. It is a system of theology at war with the truth
concerning the Christian’s true righteousness. With the pen
of JND we will enlarge upon this important subject. The first
thing to note is that the “obedience” is one whole, including
obedience unto death -- and obedience to death was not
prescribed by the law. A. C. Ord (?) well said:
. . .all the great fundamental principles exhibited in the
death of Christ -- redemption, propitiation, and
substitution - have their place in connection with, and
cannot be separated from, both our justification and the
righteousness of God, nor can the obedience of Christ
either be excluded (Rom. 5:19). But in this obedience, the
whole of the life and death of Christ is comprised, without
being separated; from His leaving the throne of God and
becoming man, to the offering up of His life on the altar,
all is looked at as one great whole, for “taking the form
of a servant, he became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross” (Phil. 2:7, 8). The moment we begin
to separate, or distinguish the life of Jesus from His death,
the language of Scripture universally applies the death, or
51. F. E. R. Heterodox, London: Weston, pp. 17-19, 1902.
52. Letters 3:167, 1881; see also 3:434, 435; and Collected Writings 13:212.
101
value of the blood of Christ, to our justification, rather than
His life; separately and alone that is never referred to for
our justification, whereas His death is repeatedly so used,
which shows unmistakably where the justifying efficacy
really lies. As to the law, it is never mentioned as the
ground of justification in any way. 53
Indeed, to make this all out to be measured by the law is, an
insult to Christ, unintentional as I suppose regarding the
character of His walk and the revelation of the Father therein
(John 14:9). But such lowering of His walk certainly is
consonant with the false notion that the law is a transcript of
the mind of God. The system substitutes the law for Christ,
for it is the Son who is a transcript of the mind of God.
Indeed, He is the Word, the Logos, the revealer of God, full
of grace and truth. The law came by Moses, grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). I am sorry for those who
do not see the profound difference. The law was the
requirement for man in the flesh, in Adamic standing. And
though Christ kept the law, to make that the measure of
everything is indeed the exposure of the poverty of theology,
as well as the utterly false notion that the law is a transcript
of the mind of God.
The law was never intended by God to be the source of
blessing for man. It had a particular function up to the cross;
namely, in connection with the testing of the first man (in the
persons of the favored Jews) to bring out the subsisting state
of the first man in the form of being a transgressor (cp. Gal.
3:19). God never intended for man to possess blessing
through its instrumentality, by man keeping it (Gal. 3:18, 29)
-- though if he did keep it he would not pay the wages of sin.
The Lord Jesus lived a life to the infinite glory of God;
and in that life He suffered atoningly in the three hours of
darkness where he bore our sins in His own body on the tree,
and was made sin for us that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him. And then He poured out His
life in death as He laid it down voluntarily as an act of will in
obedience to the Father (John 10:18)
For as by the disobedience of one the many connected with
him were constituted sinners, put into that place; so by the
obedience of one the many connected with Him were
constituted righteous. The ßB"6@Z is looked at as the
whole principle of Christ's life, including as to its
character, and proved by, obedience unto death. There was
a disobedient man, proved in eating the forbidden fruit: he
disobeyed God's will. There was an obedient man: He
obeyed God's will. The character and measure of the
obedience all through, as proved by it, was obedience unto
death, the death of the cross. This had nothing to do with
law. 54 —
There is a text referred to, "By one man's disobedience,
many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, many
53. Justification and Acceptance with God . . ., Present Truth Publishers:
Morganville, p. 21.
102
shall be made righteous." But so far from there being a
word of law or obedience to law here, it is in express
contrast. "Moreover the law entered," pareiselthe, was no
part of this great scheme in the two Adams, only came in
by the by that the offense might abound. Mark, no word
about keeping it. It had an object; it was to convict -bring in offense --- make sin sinful. So Luther, passim.
The obedience of Christ is in contrast with law. It is a
monstrous idea to make Christ's obedience merely legal.
He kept the law, surely; He was born under it, though as
Son of man above it in title. But His obedience was
absolute. What righteousness of the law called upon Him
to give His life for sinners? But that He did as obedience.
What, to bear the law's curse for another? All His life
was obedience, but far beyond law; He laid down His life
so, not according to law. And here it is obedience as a
principle contrasted with disobedience, and no thought of
law. There was a disobedient man and an obedient one -Adam and Christ. The law came in by the by. He learned
obedience by the things which He suffered. Did the law
make a righteous man suffer? Christ's obedience was
perfect and absolute. To reduce it to fulfilling the law is
horrible, though He fulfilled the highest requirement of
the law. The law was suited to the first man, Christ's
obedience to the glory of God, into which He is entered
because He finished the work His Father gave Him to do.
So in Phil. 2, He was obedient unto death (mechri
thanatou). It is the character and extreme possible limit of
a principle of obedience-He was obedient even to death.
Think of saying, He fulfilled the precepts of the law even
to death! What precept commanded a person to die? No;
His obedience was the principle of perfect submission to
His Father's will, whatever the cost might be. 55 —
First, as to the passage quoted -- Romans 5:19: we are
told, that "His whole life, as the law-fulfiller, constituted
the obedience by which many are made righteous." Now,
how does the passage speak? It speaks of Adam and
Christ as two heads of races subordinated to them, in
contrast with law, showing that we must not confine
Christ to those under law, since death and sin had reigned
when there was none -- between Adam and Moses -- over
those who had not transgressed any covenant like Adam
(Hos. 6:7). And Christ's work could not be limited within
bounds short of sin and sinners. It is a contrast between
sin and law-breaking; the passage showing that it was not
simply by law-breaking, but by a disobedience which
applied to those who were not under law, and an
obedience which did the same, that evil and good came;
and making, not individual law-keeping, but their state in
their respective heads, the true ground of ruin or
righteousness, and then adds, in direct explicit contrast
with this: "(But) law entered that the offense might
abound; but where sin abounded grace did much more
abound." Rom. 5:19 is the summary of the argument of
the obedient and disobedient man in contrast with law;
and not only so, but declares that the law came in by the
by as a distinct thing. Verses 12, 13, 14, 20, shew that
55. Collected Writings 7:314..
the apostle diligently argues here against obedience, sin, or
righteousness being confined to law-breaking or
law-fulfilling. But this is not all. In chapter 6, the apostle
raises the question, in practice: whether not being under
law is a reason for sinning, as is alleged. "Sin," he assures
us, on the contrary, "shall not have dominion over us,
because we are not under law, but under grace." And then
shows that, though not under law, we yield ourselves up to
obedience unto righteousness. He contrasts Christian
obedience and law. Taking from under law might seem, as
with our modern legal divines, to take away from
obedience. The answer of the apostle is, "In no wise." We
get from under the power of sin, because we are not under
law; and we obey as servants to righteousness and to God,
being not under law. In a word, the passage quoted to shew
that obedience is law-fulfilling is an elaborate argument of
the apostle's to shew that, while doubtless Christ kept the
law, as to Him and as to us obedience is insisted on
outside, and in contrast with, law. 56 —
But if the law be not thus a rule of life and way of
righteousness, and Christ's own obedience unto death
makes us righteous who believe in Him, what principle
have we to guard us against sinning and practical
ungodliness? Here what answers to the other tree of
Paradise comes in -- the tree of life. It is not by imposing
a law that we are kept in obedience (that failed us, for the
same reason that it did in obtaining righteousness ), but by
giving a life. Christ becomes our life, and our obedience is
in this life to God Himself, in contrast still with law
(Romans 6). But this introduces another point, which
applies to law too. The law indeed kills us, as alive in
conscience without it; but this could only be ruin and
condemnation. Christ has died in grace for us, and this is
appropriated to us by faith in Him that is risen. We say we
are crucified with Christ. The faults of the old man are not
made up by law-keeping, but the old man itself is wholly
condemned and set aside. God has condemned sin in the
flesh by Christ's death, and set it aside; for we are dead.
He only that is dead is really justified from sin. The sins
have been put away, for Christ is crucified for us; sin in
the flesh condemned by His death, but we are crucified
with Him, not in the flesh. We were in the flesh, and then
the motions of sin could be excited by the law. We reckon
ourselves, being baptized to His death, dead to sin, and
alive to God; Christ risen, our life; so that we walk in
newness of life. But this is our deliverance from law;
because He who was under it has died and satisfied its
claims, and come from under them; law having dominion
over a man as long as he lives -- and we are dead, and alive
with a new kind of life, out of the state and place where
law reached us. We have died wholly out of that, as truly
as Christ has died and risen into another, God's true place
for man in Christ. It is a new creation in us, and by which
we are placed in the new creation, where the old things are
passed away and all things are new.
Thus life is new, as well as righteousness.
57
—
The flesh says, if one man's obedience makes me
righteous, I may continue in the sin of my old nature! No:
you are dead to sin, and what you are dead to, you cannot
live in.
In Rom. 6 the objections of the natural man to the
obedience of Christ constituting us righteous are all met,
as the apostle connects practical righteousness and a holy
life with being dead with Christ, and the reception of a
new life to God through Him as a necessary result. 58 —
OT Saints not “in Christ” or “In the Last Adam”; nor was
Justification the Ground on Which They Stood Before
God. J. A. Trench, in a response to F. W. Grant, wrote:
Divine power, expressed in the resurrection of Christ, has
come in and taken us out of all we were in Adam, and put
us into the whole of the position of Christ founded upon
the finished work of the cross, and made good to us
individually when we believe the glad tidings of our
salvation, by the Holy Ghost who takes up His place in
us, giving us the consciousness that we are in Christ and
Christ in us, and of union with Him and with all that are
His. All reasoning as to what OT saints had or could not
have had, will not take away from the plain force of such
scriptures to a mind subject to them. Whither this
reasoning leads may be seen: “the direct result to me
would be this, that OT saints were neither children of
God, nor could they be justified from sin, or in the last
Adam,” &c. ({F. W. Grant,} p. 8). Thus what scripture
applies to a revealed position before God, that we are
brought into on earth as the fruit of a gloriously
accomplished redemption, is here attempted to be applied
to saints before Christ came, which if it were, would have
taken them wholly off the revealed ground upon which
God placed them. To have our place in Christ according
to Rom. 8:1, our old man must have been crucified with
Christ; but having died with Him we have died out from
under the law, and the bond of relationship with that first
husband has been absolutely broken; how then could OT
saints, who were “kept under the law” have been in
Christ? Of course they I were children of God, as surely
as they were born of God, though the mere possession of
the nature carried with it then no more than now the
consciousness of relationship, and were justified from sin
before God, 59 and not under condemnation; though none
of these things were the ground upon which they stood, as
they are, and are characteristic of (in contrast with them)
the ground upon which we stand. Read 1 Cor. 15 and
think of an OT saint being “in the last Adam”! Also Gal.
3:23 - 4:7 for the contrast of their place and ours,
specially Gal. 3:28 as to how “in Christ” takes out of
59. “Before God” I say, in contrast to any revealed position; for note the
difference in Rom. 3:20, between “the passing over of sins that are passed
through the forbearance of God,” and justification now, the cross laying the
righteous ground for both the one and the other. The paper here as
everywhere, leaves out the full place the cross has before God.
103
Jewish ground, as out of all other distinctions of the flesh.
For “if any man be in Christ, there is a new creation” (2
Cor. 5:17; cp. also v. 16). 60
Concluding Remarks on Rom. 5:18, 19 Regarding
What Is the Believer’s Righteousness. In Justification and
Acceptance With God, by A. C. Ord (?) Has the following remarks
upon Rom. 5:18, 19, which Scripture is alleged to show that the
believer’s righteousness is actually a legal righteousness, based on the
notion that Christ fulfilled the law for the believer, etc.
There are several passages referring to Christ, as the
efficient cause of our righteousness before God, and their
meaning has to be ascertained. But the reader will
remember that what we are contending against is not that
Christians are righteous in Christ, or for the sake of Christ,
which we all believe, but that they are under the law, and
that their righteousness is necessarily and purely a legal
one, supposed to be founded on the fact that Christ fulfilled
the law in their stead, or that His life on earth is our
righteousness in contrast with His death, which is only
allowed to have a “negative” 61 value, as clearing away
transgression which would otherwise stand in the way.
Rom. 5:18, 19, has been repeatedly referred to as if
it proved conclusively the doctrine called in question, but
with how little reason will be seen upon a careful
examination of the passage; “Therefore, as by the offence
of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even
so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all
men unto the justification of life; for as by one man*s
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience
of one shall many be made righteous.” Now the words “by
one offence” and “by one righteousness” (Greek) are very
abstract and do not say in what the righteousness consists;
except that it is contrasted with one offence, the one act of
Adam by which all were ruined, which makes the
ascription of it to the one act of Christ*s death most
suitable. But the next verse contrasts the obedience of
Christ with the disobedience of Adam. What does that
mean? In Phil. 2 where the same contrast with Adam is in
view, the obedience of Christ from first to last is looked at
as one great whole, “He took on him the form of a
servant” and “became obedient unto death even the death
of the cross,” where His obedience was fully tested.
Besides this we have what is similar to this “obedience of
one” in many other passages already examined as in Heb.
10, where Christ is represented as saying with reference to
His death, “Lo, I come to do thy will.” These and other
scriptures, for which the reader may refer to the early part
of this work, suffice to show that the word of God makes
more of the obedience of Christ in His death than in His
life. It therefore falls short of supporting what it is brought
forward to prove in the following points:
60. “Life and the Spirit,” in Words of Faith 3:211, 212. This was also printed
as a pamphlet
61. In making use of this word it is not intended to imply that it is strictly
accurate; but throughout this work it is applied in the sense assigned to it by
these writers who speak of the death of Christ as negative* in respect of
righteousness, though admitting that it puts away sin.
104
First. It does not say that Christ*s living obedience
justifies us in contrast with His death.
Secondly. There is not a syllable in it about His obedience
to the law.
Thirdly. The apostle*s argument is to prove that the sin
of Adam has ruined the whole human race without and
apart from the intervention of the law which, no doubt,
had its own specific effect in condemning man to death
where it was disobeyed. But he says that death reigned
from Adam to Moses over those who had not had any
distinct command given to them (like the law or the
injunction laid upon Adam) to disobey; hence the reign of
death over such is to be traced not to the law but to
Adam*s fall, combined with their own sin which is its
consequence, and he then contrasts all this with the second
Adam, and righteousness and life derived from Him, as
sin and death had been derived from the first Adam; so
that if the law is alluded to, it is only to put it on one side,
as not entering into the parallel which he is here drawing
between Adam and Christ, the effects of the sin of the
former, and redemption and righteousness brought by the
latter. In order to do this he dismisses for the time the
effect of the law over a part of the human race because he
is specifying on the one hand what had affected the whole,
i. e., Adam*s fall, and on the other what is equally
intended to apply to the whole, viz., the redemption
wrought by the second Adam.
Fourthly. That in the next verse the law is brought in as
something quite distinct from this, and having a separate
object of its own. “Moreover the law entered that the
offence might abound”; i. e., not only that men were
made sinners by one man*s disobedience which had been
met by the obedience of Christ unto death, but that they
were “transgressors” or offenders when the weight and
authority of a distinct command had been superadded; but
this has rendered grace more apparent, and that it much
more abounds by Jesus Christ over sin however
aggravated. Respecting the expression “those that receive
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness,”
since righteousness in its application to the individual is
undoubtedly a gift, it does not touch the question at issue,
for all believe righteousness to be by Christ and bestowed
of God, consequent upon what He had done, whether it be
as the result of His death or in His fulfillment of the law.
That Christ is made unto us righteousness (1 Cor.
1:30) says nothing as to how He is so made, except that
He is made so to us by God; and if other scriptures tell us
that this is by His blood justifying us, or as the result of
His having borne sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), and being now
risen from the dead, it is merely an assumption to say it
is by His keeping the law, when the word of God says
nothing of the kind. In the same passage it is stated that
“he is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification
and redemption.” How can wisdom, or sanctification, or
redemption -- all which Christ is equally said to be made
to us” --be imputed? Indeed the form of the expression
“made unto us,” instead of favoring this doctrine is rather
fitted to suggest other ideas. Had the supporters of this
doctrine written the passage, they would have said, His
legal obedience is our righteousness, whereas the Holy
Ghost says of Christ Himself in His present position before
God, “He is made unto us righteousness,” for this is what
we have obtained through Him and in Him, and thus He is
made righteousness to us rather than having fulfilled it for
us.
Indeed it is now confessed 62 that the precise
expression the righteousness of Christ is only once used in
the New Testament. “Through the righteousness of our
God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1). But had the,
apostle even meant to teach this doctrine he would have
reversed the words and put “through the righteousness of
Jesus Christ our God and Savior”; whereas, as it stands it
is far from expressing it, and as has been suggested, in an
epistle addressed to Jews may well bear the force, we have
seen it constantly has in the Old Testament, the faithfulness
of God to His promises, which accords better with the form
of the expression. But even if we take it as the
righteousness of Christ, where is there a syllable of His
obedience to the law? And we have seen that His death and
suffering, and our present standing before God in Him, are
spoken of as righteousness. What a feeble foundation upon
which to build such a systematic superstructure of doctrine.
It is admitted that “the righteousness of Christ” (in reality
it is of God) is only once mentioned in the New Testament,
and as we have seen His obedience to the law justifying us,
nowhere; whilst to deny thereupon that the blood of Christ
justifies and admits to heaven, or obtains eternal life for us,
is in truth in defiance of all Scripture.
The explicit and positive statements of particular
passages as well as the general bearing of Scripture have
been fully and carefully traced, and the result is now left to
the impartiality of the reader, only recalling to his mind
how serious are the questions he is called on to weigh; for
a slight has been undeniably put upon the value of the
person and of the death of the Son of God, the real nature
and evil of sin in believers has been disguised, and the
standing of the Christian in full peace and blessing before
God in Christ has been disfigured and beclouded. This
cannot but produce distance from God practically and
corresponding feebleness of action and power against evil,
though it may be freely and thankfully admitted that many
who have obscure and uncertain views of truth are more
earnest and faithful in carrying out the measure of light
they possess than others whose knowledge is more
advanced, whilst their hearts are less devoted to Christ.
Nevertheless it is Christ who is the truth, and it is the truth
that makes free when known, and we are sanctified by the
truth; so that if the light it gives be dimmed and the
standard of truth lowered, the consequence is that our
power of living to and enjoying God is infallibly weakened
as well as the strength of Christian life and of holiness.
Besides this, the idea held by some to the present day,
that the whole work of Christ consists in His having kept
the law in His life and suffered its penalty in His death, and
that there was nothing in His heart but the law, besides
62. By Mr. Mylne in “Reposing in Jesus” -- more recently by others.
contracting the personal glory of Christ to the limits of the
law, produces very narrow views of the character of God
and His grace toward man; and whilst it provides (in
comparison) little for the believer, leaves nothing for
those who are far off from God. This is a very capital
defect in this system, and in practice the reflection of
these principles may be seen in the harsh, exclusive spirit
often exhibited by persons of this and of the ultraCalvinistic school towards the unconverted, and those
who differ from them. For our views of the character or
aspect of God towards man as manifested in the person
and work of Christ, will infallibly and very materially
affect our behavior towards others, as our blessed Lord
has shown us (Matt. 5:44-48; cp. 1 John 4:11).
In every sense, therefore, these questions have a
practical bearing, and their importance as regards
Christian life and character can hardly be exaggerated.
But Law Came In, in Order That the Offense Might
Abound. This does sound like the law did not come in to
produce, or be the basis of, righteousness.
The word “law” does not have a “the” preceding it. W.
Kelly has a good discussion about this (in loco). While the
reference is to Moses’ law, without the the, something
characteristic is intended. So the mere historical fact of the
introduction of the law is not the point; rather, “law came
in,” law as a new basis of God’s dealing with the first man,
in the favored persons of the Jews. The point is the character
of God’s dealings.
“Abound” indicates the increase of offense emanating
from the action of “sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3) under the
restraint on the will imposed by the law. The quickened soul
in Rom. 7, in conscience under the principle of law before
God, felt this deeply (Rom. 7:7, 8).
The law is not the determining factor in man’s state
under the Adamic headship, since sin was in the world
before the giving of the law, shown by the universal reign of
death. It was something brought in subsequently; added to
more fully bring out that state..
God does not make sin abound as if He was the author
of it. Besides, sin was there before the law was. But the law
came in by the way, in God’s ways in testing the first man,
to bring out a feature of sin; namely, that it really is a
flouting of His will; and added to that, the despising of His
rights and authority in giving the law. Sin is lawlessness; and
while sin is a flouting of God’s will, an acting without
regard to His holy will, the prohibitions of the law brought
that into bold relief. The law gave this flouting of God’s will
a visible character, for then it took the form of transgression
against the stated, public commands of God. Thus man’s
contempt for God was manifested in this way. Yes, the law
was a provocation upon sin in the flesh (Rom. 7:8). God’s
purpose was to manifest the state of the first man. So man’s
lawlessness is shown to be also offense against God’s
government of man.
105
But Where Sin Abounded Grace Has Overabounded.
It is not said that grace abounded where the offenses
abounded. The statement is most general -- where sin
abounded -- including all those under the headship of Adam.
The statement certainly excludes the law as involved some
way in the overabounding of grace.
“Overabound” surely is meant to convey the superlative
degree of grace in abounding exceedingly in contrast to the
abounding of sin.
This grace results from the work Christ wrought in
glorifying God on the cross with respect to the outrage of sin
against the nature and majesty of God. God acts in accordance
with His estimate of the worth of that work. And who can
know that but God? For the infinite value and glory of the
Person of Christ was imparted to that work and determines its
value. Its value, then, is commensurate with the value of His
Person. This is really infinite in character. The cross provided
the righteous basis upon which grace, overabounding grace,
lays hold of the believer in eternal embrace:
that he might display in the coming ages the surpassing
riches of his grace in his kindness towards us in Christ
Jesus (Eph. 2:7).
In Order That, Even as Sin Has Reigned in [the Power
of] Death, So Also Grace Might Reign Through Righteousness to Eternal Life Through Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Grace reigning through righteousness means that Christ so
wrought for the glory of God, on the cross, regarding our
sins,as well as sin in the flesh, that God has a righteous basis
for His actions in grace.
There are four phases with respect to righteousness,
during the history of this world, followed by another state
altogether in the new heavens and the new earth:
1. From Adam to the law, the first man (man in Adamic
standing and responsibility) was not under trial by law,
but was not found righteous. Sin was in the world.
2. From the giving of the law until Christ, the first man
was under trial by the law, in the persons of the favored
Jews (Rom. 3:1), but was found to be a transgressor.
3. Now, grace reigns through righteousness. The first
man is judged in the cross and is no longer under testing.
The Mosaic age continues on, the law is left where it
was, the Mosaic System is rejected. God’s dealings with
the first man, as such, are over. He leaves the world to
go on its course until the intervention by the public
introduction of Christ when He appears in glory to smite
the nations and set up the promised kingdom on earth.
4. In the kingdom, we are told, righteousness will reign
-- a King shall reign in righteousness (Isa. 32:1). This
will be introduced when the Son of Man takes the reigns
of government; for, as the smiting stone of Dan. 2, He
will have crushed the image -- and the stone become a
106
great mountain and filling the earth. That is His
kingdom in the earth. When His judgments are in the
earth, then will the people learn righteousness (Isa.
26:9).
And then in the eternal state righteousness will dwell (2 Pet.
3:13).
Grace reigning through righteousness to eternal life
means eternal life, as Paul speaks of it, at the end of our
journey here, as was pointed out, above, by W. J. Lowe
(and others as well, of course):
Moreover the special aspect of eternal life here, and all
through Romans, is that of a state of life into which we
enter at the close, hence future (cp. Rom. 2:7); and “alive
unto God” and “eternal life” are not here synonymous
terms. 63 —
It is not merely the deliverance from the burden of sins
which lay upon us, but goes on to the life manifested in
the Lord’s resurrection, which faith appropriates now, so
that we yield ourselves to God, “as alive from the dead”
(Rom. 6:13), a life which we shall know in its fulness
with Him in glory, when He will be manifested as
firstborn among many brethren. 64 —
Rom. 5:12-21 closes with attribution “through our Lord
Jesus Christ.” I am not aware that the Apostle has any other
idea than that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all under His
headship and that this Lordship is to be owned by those who
profess to know Him. God has made Him both Lord and
Christ (Acts 2:36) and He has not given us the option of
coming to Him as Christ, for salvation, while not owning
Him as Lord!
63. Life and Propitiation . . ., p. 97.
64. Life and Propitiation . . ., p. 105.
Chapter 3.5: Outline of L. S. Chafer’s Views Concerning an Intercalated Age of Grace
107
Chapter 3.5
Outline of L. S. Chafer’s Views Concerning an
Intercalated Age of Grace
Introduction
The Scripture expression “the end of the age” does not mean
the end of a church age, for the saints will be raptured before
“the end of the age.” The phrase, the end of the age (Matt.
13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20) is really the end of the Mosaic age,
which age is the age we Christians are now in. The cross did
not change the age; the Mosaic age continues on. The work
God is now doing is not an earthly age among the earthly ages.
That is, Christianity is not an age among the earthly ages. It
is a heavenly thing, above and outside of the ages. So while
God is doing the heavenly work, the Mosaic age (referred to in
Matt. 12:32; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 4:4; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21; 1
Tim. 6:17; 2 Tim. 4:10) 65 continues on -- continues right
through the period called Daniel’s seventieth week -- until it is
displaced by “the age to come” (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30;
Luke 18:30; Eph. 1:12; Heb. 6:5), which is the millennial age,
i.e., the administration of the fullness of times (Eph. 1:10).
The testing of man ended with the cross. Man had been under
probation by God, and the final test was Christ Himself. Since
then man is not under probation (testing) any longer. We will
review this in chapter two. The intercalary-age-of-grace
system that we are reviewing says that man is presently still
under testing and is being tested by grace. This system
involves a number of other points as well, which we will note
below.
The Intercalated Age of Grace
and What it Entails
L. S. Chafer (hereafter LSC) was the protégé of C. I.
Scofield and founded the school now known as the Dallas
Theological Seminary. He wrote a number of books, his
chief work being a seven volume systematic theology with an
eighth volume as an index. The intercalated-age-of-grace
system we will review is found in this work. It seems to me
that LSC perceived a deficiency in the Scofield scheme that
there is an “age of grace” among the earthly ages, namely
the matter of “the end of the age.” He saw that “the end of
the age” cannot be the end of Scofield’s postulated “age of
grace.” 66 He wrote that:
˜ the age of grace is an intercalated age and it is
intercalated into the Mosaic age;
˜ it interrupted the Mosaic age and the Mosaic age will
recommence after the rapture of the saints, and will be
in force during the tribulation period;
˜ this intercalated age interrupted the time during which
the law is in force, but the law will be in force again
during the tribulation period;
˜ moreover, the intercalated age, i.e., “the church age,”
interrupted “the times of the Gentiles,” which means
a “setting aside of the Gentile times for the age of the
church” (ST4:331). He spoke of the times of the
Gentiles as intercalary, yet somehow “the times of the
Gentiles” did not interrupt the Mosaic age when those
Times began -- as the intercalary “age of grace” is
supposed to interrupt the Mosaic age when it began.
Below is a chart that seeks to represent LSC’s ideas.
66. C. I. Scofield wrote:
65. Consequent upon the rejection of Christ, the Mosaic age was stamped
with some new features. For example, Satan was then called the ruler of this
world (John 16:11) as well as the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4).
The present age, then, which began with the first advent of Jesus
Christ and ends with His return in glory . . . . (Will the Church
Pass Through the Great Tribulation? P. 5, 1917.
108
LSC thus sought to account for the character of the “age of
grace,” to keep the “age of grace” an unforeseen thing by
the OT prophets, to keep the church a mystery and heavenly,
and to maintain the Scofield system, which regards man as
still under testing (probation).
Now, in Part 1, it is pointed out that the Scofield system
is really a system of age-ism with some elements borrowed
from J. N. Darby (hereafter JND) without which it would
not have arisen as a system. However, the Scofield system
is different in a number of respects and, very importantly, it
violates the truth that the probation (testing) of the first man
ended at the cross. Thus the Scofield system proposes an
“age of grace” during which man is being tested by grace.
The problems that result from the inserting the erroneous
Scofieldian “age of grace” among the earthly ages have thus
been increased by LSC trying to “refine”67 the Scofieldian
age-ism system. LSC spoke of the church as a heavenly age.
But ages of time are all earthly and asserting that one of them
is heavenly does not make it heavenly. It really is an earthly
“church age” among the earthly ages. Involved in this is the
refusing to acknowledge that the earthly man (“the first
man,” 1 Cor. 15:45-47) is no longer under testing
(probation) since the cross. What we have, then, is the first
man, of the earth, earthy, being tested in a “heavenly age.”
The end of the probation of the first man in the cross will be
reviewed in a later chapter.
Last century many of JND’s opposers held that the
Christian was under law, in one manner or another. He
repeatedly pointed out that the Christian is dead with Christ
and the law cannot apply to Christ dead and risen, nor to
believers who are in Christ. He said, scripturally, that the
Christian was dead, not that the law was dead. How easy it
would have been to affirm that not only is the Christian dead,
but that the law is also dead, if that was what Scripture
stated. But the Scripture says the first of these, not the
second. Yet LSC, and those that follow the above scheme of
his, assert that the law is obviously dead now (but will be in
force again in the tribulation period). No, it is not at all
obvious that the law is now dead. Scripture does not so
state. One extreme is to say that Christians are under the
law; the other extreme is not only to say that the Christian is
dead but, that the law is dead also. The truth is that the law
is not dead but that the Christian is dead to the law and to
sin. How one thinks about the law (is the Christian under it
as the rule of life, or is it dead or not) is connected with how
one views the present work that God is doing. In a later
67. Referring to “Scofield’s second-generation scheme” R. Zuelch wrote,
“Further simplification has occurred in more recent decades, especially since
World War II. Modern classical dispensationalists, as represented by the
third-generation Walvoord/Ryrie/Pentecost school, have continued to refine
dispensationalism, “ (CTS Journal (Chafer Theological Seminary) Fall 1966,
p. 15).
chapter we will review the Scriptures brought forward to
allege that the law is dead since the cross, until somehow
reinstated after the church is removed.
The Intercalated Age of Grace
and the Times of the Gentiles
DURATION OF THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES
The times of the Gentiles measure foreign dominion over
Jerusalem, evidently began with the Babylonian captivity,
and continue until the present hour and will do so until
Israel is returned to possession of her own land (ST7:170).
The latter term was introduced by Christ (Luke 21:24) and
measures the period in which Jerusalem will be under the
overlordship of Gentiles (ST4:380).
BUT LSC REALLY BELIEVES THOSE TIMES RUN FOR ONLY 560
YEARS
It is thus disclosed that the Gentile times run for 560 years
-- 70 of the captivity, and 490 more unto the full
realization of all Jewish promises (ST4:338).
If this detached, dissociated age, segregated character of
this age {the “Church age”} is not granted, there can be
no tracing of God’s time-periods as they are revealed; for,
as it is clearly indicated in the outworking of Daniel’s 490
years for the Jews and the 560 {70 + 490} years for the
Gentiles, the divine reckoning makes no place for this
unforseen and unpredicted age of grace, as it is manifested
in the Church (ST 4:339).
Here he treats the times of the Gentiles in exactly the same
way as Daniel’s 70 weeks. As there is a gap between the
69th and 70th week, so he places the same gap into the times
of the Gentiles. In reality then, in spite of a few other
statements, he really believes that the times of the Gentiles is
not in force in the alleged “church age.” An acknowledgment
that Jerusalem remains under Gentile domination does not
change the point.
THE CHURCH AGE IS NOT PART OF THE TIMES OF THE
GENTILES
Strictly speaking, this Church age is not a part or
development of the times of the Gentile times (ST4:330).
THE CHURCH AGE HAS INTERRUPTED, BUT NOT ENDED, THE
TIMES OF THE GENTILES
It cannot be made too emphatic that God’s earthly purpose
centers in the Jew, and that, apart from the interruption of
a Gentile period {i.e., the times of the Gentiles} which is
in itself interrupted by the Church age, there would be
only the direct outworking and development to fulfilment
of every Israelitish covenant. These interruptions, or
intercalations, in no way jeopardize the primary earthly
purpose in Israel . . . there is a time which also serves for
Israel’s chastisement, an intercalation of Gentile times; and
(3) there is an intercalation of the age of the Church into
Gentile times, and therefore, equally into Jewish times and
seasons. Daniel is chosen of God to explain the intrusion
of Gentile times into Israel’s calendar, and Christ and Paul
explain the intrusion of the age of the Church into the
Gentile and Jewish times (ST4:332).
That determined for Rome, which was interrupted by this
age of the Church, will yet be consummated when the
outcalling of the Church is accomplished and she has been
removed from the earth (ST4:334).
THE CHURCH AGE IS INTERCALATED WITHIN THE GENTILE
TIMES
Since Israel’s program is that which is incomplete, both the
intercalation of the Gentile times and the intercalation of the
Church within Gentile times are looked upon as gaps in the
predicted Jewish program (ST4:342).
. . . there is an intercalation of the church into Gentile times
(ST4:332).
His view is illustrated on the chart below.
OBSERVE: GOD DEALT WITH THE JEWS AFTER THE CROSS VIA
THE ROMANS
Indeed, God “sent his forces, destroyed those murderers, and
burned their city” (Matt. 22:7). It is notorious that the
destruction of Jerusalem occurred under the Roman armies
in AD 70. And as Luke 21:24 said:
109
intercalated, did not stop the Mosaic age! With the word
“intercalary” we can stop what we want to stop and not stop
what we do not want stopped!
OBSERVE: ISRAEL LO-AMMI DURING THE ENTIRE TIMES OF
THE GENTILES
Moreover, keep in mind that Israel was pronounced Lo-ammi
(not my people) from when the times of the Gentiles began.
The Lo-ammi period for Israel exactly parallels the times of
the Gentiles. That is, Israel is Lo-ammi during the entire
period of the times of the Gentiles. The two go hand in
hand. Now, that brings up the question: are we to believe
that the Lo-ammi status of Israel also was interrupted
(intercalated) and Israel’s Lo-ammi status is in abeyance
now? But why not, if the parallel period of “the times of the
Gentiles” is in abeyance? Israel will be pronounced Ammi
when all Israel is saved when Christ returns in glory. See J.
N. Darby’s Teaching Regarding Dispensations, Ages,
Administrations and the Two Parentheses, available from the
publisher. Part 8 has a detailed discussion concerning Israel
being Lo-ammi.
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and be led
captive into all the nations.
So it certainly happened in AD 70. There is no gap in Luke
21:24. There is no “age of grace” gap in the times of the
Gentiles. The Roman empire continued on after Acts 2. It
was to Rome that Paul was taken as a prisoner. It was
Roman power that banished John to the isle of Patmos. It
was Rome that persecuted the saints in Smyrna (Rev. 2). It
was Rome that trod down Jerusalem in AD 70. Recall that
above we saw that LSC claimed:
That determined for Rome, which was interrupted by this
age of the Church, will yet be consummated when the
outcalling of the Church is accomplished and she has been
removed from the earth (ST4:334).
Well, Matt. 22:7 was determined by God for Rome for AD
70. LSC boldly affirmed that:
It is clear that Gentile times are now accomplished but for
the seven years which will be experienced immediately
upon the removal of the Church, which event closes this
intercalary age (ST4:380).
God transferred government into the hands of the Gentile
powers for the times of the Gentiles, but, according to LCS,
the times of the Gentiles stopped at the cross, as did Daniel’s
70th week. Concerning the feet of the image, the clay
represents the democratic principle over against the iron rule.
Democracy has already emerged during the alleged “church
age” and will be coupled together with the iron after the
church is removed.
So, according to LSC, the intercalary “church age”
stopped the Mosaic age; but the intercalary “times of the
Gentiles” did not stop the Mosaic age back in 605 BC when
it began. And yet the intercalated “church age” stopped the
intercalated times of the Gentiles, which when it was
110
LSC claimed that “the age of grace” is an intercalated age and that the times of the Gentiles is also intercalated by the “Age
of Grace.” Notice that the intercalated “age of grace,” supposedly a “heavenly age,” Interrupts the earthly Mosaic age and the
law, and it interrupts the earthly times of the Gentiles; but the intercalation of the times of the Gentiles did not interrupt the Mosaic
age when those times began in about 605 BC. Had the intercalation notion been consistently carried out, the times of the
Gentiles would have interrupted the Mosaic age, but that would not serve the end to be arrived at.
Moreover, “the times of the Gentiles” period is parallel to the “Lo-ammi” period, starting at the same time and ending at
almost exactly the same time. And why would the Lo-ammi period not be intercalated by the “church age” just as in the case
of the parallel, interconnected “times of the Gentiles”? -- why, because being not Lo-ammi, i.e., not, not-my-people, means they
would be God*s people during the “age of grace.” The truth is that all three, the times of the Gentiles, the Mosaic age, and the
Lo-ammi status, continued on. The church, being heavenly, is above and outside of ages.
Keep in mind that during the alleged “heavenly age” the first man, the earthy man, is continued under testing by the
Scofield system.
Observe The Problem With
The Scofield Age-ism Scheme
C. I. Scofield wrote:
The present age, then, which began with the first advent
of Jesus Christ and ends with His return in glory . . . .
(Will the Church Pass Through the Great Tribulation?
p. 5, 1917.
This scheme, we noticed earlier, places Daniel’s 70th week in
“the church age.” Now, surely any ‘dispensationalist’
Christian who thinks about this must be disturbed about that
idea. The great tribulation is part of “the church age”? So
LSC invented a ‘solution.’ The Age of Grace is an
intercalated age. “Intercalate” means to insert something, as
for example, an intercalary day into the calendar. After that
day passes, the calendar continues on as before the
intercalated day. So, in LSC’s scheme to solve the problem
left by CIS, he intercalated an age -- and this means that the
Mosaic System picks up again right where it was interrupted.
And that means that the sacrifice system of Judaism picks up
just where it was interrupted. It means the reinstatement of
the sacrificial system and the Aaronic priesthood as it was
before the cross, a reinstatement by God and under the
sanction of God. We utterly repudiate this repugnant and
revolting notion, an insult to the finished work of Christ. I
am glad to say that some correspondence with Scofieldian
dispensationalist leaders indicates that there is widespread
rejection of the idea. But then where does that leave them? -to go back to the truth as unfolded through J. N. Darby? I
can hardly picture that happening.
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, a Scofiedlian age-ist, in his
book, Footsteps of the Messiah, has a chart showing what he
called the “Dispensation of grace” spanning the time from
Pentecost until the appearing of Christ in glory, the same
period of time as CIS’s “Present Age.” But, he places under
this a “Church Age” followed by the great tribulation, which
is thus outside the church age. Thus the great tribulation is a
part of the “Dispensation of Grace.” Really, these incredible
notions are the vain and desperate exigencies of the basically
flawed Scofield age-ism system. The adherents rightly know
that covenant theology is unsound, but they have traditionally
worked at putting distance between themselves and J. N.
Darby. They have rejected the truth of the end of the testing
of the first man at the cross and have created an age-ism
system. This they call ‘dispensationalism’; whereas, it
hinders persons from seeing much dispensational truth.
The fact is, then, that the end of the testing of the first
man, man in Adamic standing before God, ended with the
rejection of Christ. And this great and important fact is
foundational for Christianity; and it vitiates the Schofieldian
scheme in its several permutations, as well as covenant
theology.
*****
Since the idea that “the age of grace” among the earthly ages
entails the notion that man is still being tested by God, on the
next page is a summary chart regarding the end of the testing
of the (fallen) first man; and in ch. 3.6 we will briefly review
some Scriptures that show that the probation (testing) of “the
first man” ended with the rejection of Christ at the cross. In
ch. 3.7 we will review JND’s teaching concerning the law
and the Christian, and JND’s teaching regarding Christian
responsibility. In ch. 3.8 we will review in some detail the
Scriptures LSC uses to show that the law is not now in
effect, another erroneous idea that is part of, and required
by, his intercalated-age-of-grace system. In ch. 3:9, an
answer to “ultradispensationalism” is given, particularly of
the view that the body of Christ began with the salvation of
Paul.
111
112
End of the Testing of the First Man
. . . that which is spiritual [was] not first - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - then that which is spiritual (1 Cor. 14:46)
The first man out of [the] earth, made of dust,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the second man, out of heaven (1 Cor. 15:47)
FINAL TESTING
NOW
Tested by the person of
the Son, the Second Man
The Second Man has now
displaced the First Man
A nd at last He sent to
them His Son (Matt. 21:37)
In view of the end of the testing
of the First Man, God declares:
The perfect King and the Kingdom (Matt.)
The perfect Servant and perfect service (Mark)
The perfect Man and perfect dependency (Luke)
The only-begotten, full of grace and truth (John 1:14)
The revelation of the Father in the Son (John 15:24).
Wrath of God revealed from heaven (Rom. 1:18)
Every mouth stopped (Rom. 3:20)
All the world under judgment (Rom. 3:20)
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)
All are dead (2 Cor. 5:14; Eph. 2:1)
Now is the judgment of this world (John 12:31)
In due time Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6)
Christ died for all (2 Cor. 5:14)
Christ gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6)
Christ is the propitiation for the world (1 John 2:2)
Note particularly that the first man, in the persons of the Jews,
was tested by the kingdom in the offer of the King and kingdom; and was tested by grace in the person of the Son. Man
is not now being tested by grace. God has concluded testing
the first man, having shown all to be under sin (Rom. 3:9).
ADAM,
The First Man
UNDER:
C onscience
Government
Law
Priesthood
Judges
Kings
Prophets
“The fulness of the time” (Gal. 4:4)
“In due time” (Rom. 5:6)
(at the end of the time of testing)
The trial of the First Man ended at the cross. The declaration that man is
lost followed upon the conclusion of the trial of man in the flesh. The case
is closed and now God sends forth the gospel based on what the Second
Man has done.
NOW: Rom. 3:21; 2 Tim. 1:9-10; Eph. 3:10; Heb. 9:26
“Yet sinners” (Rom. 5:8)
“Still without strength” (Rom. 5:6)
(conclusion at the end of the testing)
“Consummation of the
ages” (Heb. 9:26)
(ages of testing)
God NOW enjoins men
everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)
“Upon whom the ends of the
ages are come” (1 Cor. 10:11)
(ages of testing)
R. A. Huebner -- Jan. 19, 1998
Chapter 3.6: Is Man Under Probation Today?
113
Chapter 3.6
Is Man Under Probation Today?
Israel Is Lo-ammi During
The Times of the Gentiles
Those who claim that there is an age of grace among the
earthly ages also claim that God is now testing man in respect
to grace. Those who hold that the church is not an age
among the ages also know that man is no longer under
probation since the cross. That is, man is not now being
tested -- and specifically he is not now being tested in respect
to grace. And those who are more fully instructed in the
heavenly character of the church realize that the present age
is the Mosaic age. The Church is above and outside ages.
The Church, properly speaking, the body of Christ, is not
a dispensation, it does not belong to the earth; but there is
an order of things connected with it during its sojourn here
below -- an order of things whose existence is linked with
the Church’s responsibility. 68
I know what a person means by “the dispensation of the
kingdom of heaven,” but we belong to a heavenly thing
during an interval, and there are no dispensations in
heaven. 69
Yes, there are no dispensations in heaven. What does it
mean when someone speaks of an alleged church age as “a
heavenly age”?
In the age-ism scheme, ages and
dispensations are equated. The “heavenly age,” then, is a
heavenly dispensation. There are no dispensations in heaven.
There is no heavenly dispensation on earth. The talk about
an earthly age being a “heavenly age” is but an attempt to
preserve the heavenly character of the church while imposing
an age-ism scheme upon dispensational truth. It is an attempt
to circumvent the objection that the idea of “a church age”
makes the church an earthly age among the earthly ages.
That is exactly what it does; and inserting the word
“heavenly” in front of the word “age” does not change its
true character.
Defect, or feebleness, in view may not apprehend some
of these things. But it should be obvious that neither the
Jews nor the Gentiles are being tested in an age whose
beginning and ending coincides with the time during which
God is gathering a heavenly people out of the world.
Long before this time when God is gathering a heavenly
people, He removed government from Israel and gave it to
the Gentiles. The period during which government is in the
hands of the Gentiles is called “the times of the Gentiles”
(nations) by our Lord in Luke 21:24. “The times of the
Gentiles” is depicted by the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream (Dan. 2). This period runs from the time of
Nebuchadnezzar until the smiting stone smashes the image on
its feet, 70 which smiting depicts the coming of our Lord from
heaven, at His appearing in glory, to smite the nations and
set up the kingdom. That kingdom is symbolized in Dan. 2
as the smiting stone becoming a great mountain and filling
the whole earth.
Simultaneous to the transfer of government from Israel
to the Gentiles, the nation of Israel was pronounced Lo-ammi
(meaning, “not-my-people”). See Hos. 1. The nation
remains in that status until the appearing of the Lord in glory
to set up the kingdom -- at which time all Israel will be saved
(Rom. 11:26), the rebels having been purged out (Ezek. 20;
Zech. 12-14). Then Israel will be the center of earthly
government once again. Meanwhile, including at this very
moment, the people of Israel are Lo-ammi. The Lo-ammi
period runs parallel to the times of the Gentiles. While the
Gentiles have the governmental power that was transferred to
them, the people of Israel is Lo-ammi. While the people of
Israel is Lo-ammi, the Gentiles have the governmental power
that was transferred to them from Israel. This has been the
case from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and nothing has
changed regarding that. There has been no interruption of
this status and this status will only be changed when Christ
appears in glory. The idea that the times of the Gentiles
stopped at the cross and that there remains a future seven
year period of it, is no more sound than if one proposed that
the Lo-ammi status for Israel stopped at the cross and there
only remains a future seven year period for them to be Lo-
70. The fact that the nation was established in 1948 does not mean “the times
of the Gentiles” is over. The worst time for the Jews in that land is yet to
come (Matt. 24:21-22).
114
ammi. And what that would mean is that they are not Loammi now. That is, that would mean that they are not “not
my people” now -- which would mean that they are God’s
people now. Of course you must see the error of supposing
that the Lo-ammi status stopped at the cross. What would
make one think that the parallel times of the Gentiles stopped
at the cross?
resurrection He was in the place of the second man. His
death and resurrection are the great dividing point. The
cross ended the place the first man had under the probation
of God. The first man’s history, morally speaking, was
closed by the cross. God is done with him, except that
having declared men to be LOST, He saves, but that is
another matter.
So the cross did not change the status of the people nor
the status of the times of the Gentiles. Israel began to be Loammi during the age of the law and continues to be Lo-ammi
for the remainder of the Mosaic age, which age continues up
to the introduction of the millennial kingdom, when they will
be Ammi (Hos. 2). And the governmental power that was
transferred, from those pronounced to be Lo-ammi, to the
Gentiles, occurring during the Mosaic age, was not
interrupted by the cross. That transferred governmental
power continues on through the Mosaic age.
The cross, which was the culminating demonstration of
the moral depravity of the first man, is the very instrument
through which God is manifested as a just God and a Savior.
This reminds me of some lines in a hymn by J. G. Deck:
The Final Test of the First Man
Was the Revelation of the
Father in the Son
The Two Men
The ways of God to accomplish His purpose to glorify
Himself in Christ entails His dealing with two men:
The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam
a quickening spirit. But that which is spiritual [was] not
first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual:
the first man out of [the] earth, made of dust; the second
man out of heaven (1 Cor. 15:46, 47).
The designation “Adam” refers to two headships. Men as
born into the world stood before God in an Adamic standing
while under testing. That is, God took account of man as
before Himself for probation. The testing came to the point
where it involved the giving of the law to Israel. The nations
were never under the law. The law, however, addressed
man in Adamic responsibility, in the persons of the favored
nation. Thus, it addressed the first man -- according to the
text above it was the natural man; for first “that which is
natural.” The law did not address itself to the children of
God, as such. It was for the first man, the natural man, but
in the persons of the favored Jews.
Observe the order specified: first that which is natural,
then that which is spiritual. The two are sequential, not
simultaneous. God is not dealing with the first and second
man simultaneously. First . . . then.
When the Lord Jesus was walking here on earth He was
the second man in His own person, of course; i.e., He
personally was the second man. But that is not the same as
being installed into the place proper to the second man in the
purpose of God.
Consequent upon His death and
The very spear that pierced Thy side,
Drew forth the blood to save.
Consequent upon the final failure of the first man, he has lost
his place before God, under probation, and has been
displaced by the second man, out of heaven. 71 The first man
is the man of responsibility and the second man is the man of
God’s purpose. The history of the responsible man (who
utterly failed in it) is morally ended and He has been
displaced before God by the man of purpose, the second
man. God does not have the two before Him at the same
time. “First . . . then.” And we believers are before God
in connection with the man of purpose, the approved man,
the accepted man, the second man.
The Presentation of Christ
to the First Man
CHRIST WAS PRESENTED TO THE FIRST MAN
Perhaps you have not thought of it that way -- that Christ was
presented to the first man. You were thinking He was
presented to the Jews. Well, yes He was, of course:
He came to his own, and his own received him not (John
1:11).
And while thinking of that, keep in mind that while the first
three gospels trace steps in the rejection of the Lord Jesus, in
the gospel of John his rejection is stated at once at the
beginning, and John has a very distinct character from the
other three. The gospel of John is written, therefore, as
assuming that rejection -- and it characterizes that rejection
in the most profound and distinctive manner, as we shall see
below. But here we should direct our thoughts to the fact
that though He came to His own, in the ways of God the first
man was being tested in the persons of the Jews. And Christ
is the consummation of that testing.
71. “Out of heaven” denotes the moral origin of Christ. His humanity did
not come from heaven -- He came from heaven and took holy humanity into
His person. His humanity came from Mary; and the union of Godhead and
manhood in Him was by the overshadowing of the Spirit (Luke 1:35).
EXAMPLE FROM MATTHEW
First, then, we will note a parable in Matt. 21:
Hear another parable: There was a householder who
planted a vineyard, and made a fence round it, and dug a
winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to
husbandmen and left the country. But when the time of
fruit drew near, he sent his bondmen to the husbandmen
to receive his fruits. And the husbandmen took his
bondmen, and beat one, killed other, and stoned another.
Again he sent other bondmen more than the first, and they
did to them in like manner. And at last he sent to them his
son, saying, They will have respect for my son. But the
husbandmen, seeing the son, said among themselves, This
is the heir; come let us kill him and possess his
inheritance. And they took him, and cast him forth out of
the vineyard, and killed him. When therefore the lord of
the vineyard comes, what shall he do to those
husbandmen? They say to him he will miserably destroy
those evil [men] and let out the vineyard to other
husbandmen, who shall render to him the fruits in their
seasons. Jesus says to them, Have ye never read in the
scriptures, The stone which they that builded rejected, this
has become the corner-stone: this is of [the] Lord, and it
is wonderful in our eyes? Therefore I say to you, that the
kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be
given to a nation producing the fruits of it . . . (Matt.
21:33-43).
Here we see the final test: the last thing that could be done.
“And at last he sent to them His son.” They did not
reverence His son, not then; but they shall! The Lord
continued, telling them of some of the consequences.
Observe also that this parable is followed by another in Matt.
22, regarding a wedding feast for the king’s son, that bears
on the same rejection but brings out other consequences.
One of these was that:
And [when] the king [heard of it he] was wroth and having
sent his forces, destroyed those murderers and burned
their city (Matt. 22:7).
We may be sure that God did this even if we did not realize
that the Romans did this very thing in AD 70. These
Romans were “his forces,” for God had transferred
governmental power from Israel, about BC 605, to
Nebuchadnezzar; and that power thus committed to the head
of gold in the image of Dan. 2 was now administered by the
iron section (the fourth) of the image: Rome. No, “the times
of the Gentiles” was not interrupted by the cross.
Well, Christ’s rejection is traced, no doubt, in keeping
with the character of each respective gospel. Matthew gives
us God’s governmental/disciplinary dealings, and
dispensational changes, in a very pronounced way. We turn
now to John where Christ’s rejection is marked by very
distinct features in connection with the Son’s glory, full of
grace and truth.
115
The Testing by Grace Took Place
When The Son Was Here
THE TIME OF TESTING BY GRACE AND TRUTH IS PAST
We already noted that John 1:11 states Christ’s rejection at
the beginning of that gospel which is characterized by the
presentation of the divine Persons, as well as what God is for
the children of God.
We have considered some matters concerning the second
man: something the Son became. He was not man before
the incarnation. On the other hand, He was eternally Son in
the Godhead. The divine Persons are one in will; and in
omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. But there is
distinction of Persons, and God acts in accordance with that
distinction of Persons. The Father sends, the Son comes and
carries out the Father’s will, and does all in the power of the
Spirit. In Col. 1:19 we read of what the pleasure of the
Fulness was: to dwell in Christ. And Col. 2:9 states the
accomplished and abiding fact:
For in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
From the instant of conception, from the instant the union of
the divine and human took place, there all the Fulness dwelt
-- and, of course still does, forever so, my soul. Yes, we
shall see Him as He is!
Every word and work of the Son was done in the power
of the Spirit in obedience to the Father. All the Fulness
dwelt in Christ. He perfectly gave expression to the Father
in all things, so that He could say:
He that has seen me has seen the Father; and how sayest
thou, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I [am]
in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words
which I speak to you I do not speak from myself; but the
Father who abides in me, does the works (John 14:10).
We read:
And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we
have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an onlybegotten with a father), full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
The light had appeared but the darkness apprehended it not
(John 1:5). Man was dead in trespasses and sins, and knew
it not. He had no faculty to see the light, but does that mean
the light was not there? Of course not. It was there but men
had not the faculty to see Him full of grace and truth. The
Lord Jesus was full of grace and truth while here walking
before the Father in the power of the Spirit. The first man,
in the persons of the Jews to whom He was presented, was
tested by Him Who was personally full of grace and truth.
Thus man had been tested before the cross by grace and truth
in His person. The cross was the end of man being tested by
grace and truth. There is no “age of grace” wherein man is
being tested by grace. The first man was under testing by
grace (and truth) in the person of the Son, up to the cross,
where, in the most amazing display of grace, He gave
116
Himself! Calvary is the terminal point for the probation of
man, ending in him having rejected Him in whom all the
Fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. There is no test after
that. I suggest that it really takes away from Him, from His
glory, to claim that man is being further tested. The notion
really implies that the previous testing was not enough! It
implies that the Son, full of grace and truth, was not enough
to complete the testing of the first man.
THE REJECTION OF THE FATHER AND THE SON
And what is the Son of God’s testimony about His rejection?
If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had
sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that
hates me hates also my Father. If I had not done among
them the works which no other one has done, they had not
had sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me
and my Father (John 15:22-24).
There was no greater test than the revelation of the Father in
the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit. In fact, this sin (of
rejection) is unique. Surely it must be in a class by itself!
And so it is. The word sin in this text refers to a unique sin.
Surely our Lord was not saying that if He had not come and
spoken to them sin would have been nonexistent. No.
Rather, he is speaking of a unique sin: namely, the rejection
of the revelation of the Father in the Son, in the power of the
Spirit. This then is the pronouncement:
They have both seen and hated both me and my Father.
There is nothing beyond or surpassing that. This is the
climax. This fully declares the state of the first man. What
kind of a notion regarding testing do they have who continue
it on after the cross? While it is not intentionally meant as an
insult to the Father and the Son, it is insulting.
The Resultant Judgment
Pronounced Upon the
First Man on the Occasion
of His Climactic Sin
The sin we considered when looking at John 15:22-24 is
named again, in John 16. The Spirit who is omnipresent,
present everywhere, was going to come. Of course, He was
here in the world before and He will be in the world after the
rapture of the saints, yet He would be sent and He would
come. He would come in a certain capacity and for certain
functions, among them to indwell the believer and the
church. In John 16 we see that the Spirit was to be sent in
testimony to Christ’s place in glory consequent upon His
rejection here. This is what He would do:
And having come, he will bring demonstration to the
world, of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of
sin, because they do not believe on me; of righteousness,
because I go away to [my] Father, and ye behold me no
longer; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is
judged (John 16:8-11).
Bring Demonstration.
Concerning the word “demonstration,” a footnote in JND’s translation says:
. . . his presence and all that he does affords this
demonstration.
That men have not the faculty to perceive this does not
change the fact. Nor is the “demonstration” the same thing
as “testing.” Indeed, the present work of the Spirit in
bringing such “demonstration” indicates that the testing is
over, that man is pronounced lost in view of the conclusion
of the testing.
Of Sin, Because They do not Believe on Me. This refers to
that unique sin named in John 15:22-24. This was the
culmination of all sin, the consummation of the probation of
the first man. The Spirit is present here to bring
demonstration of this. He has come on account of the fact
that this sin has taken place. There is no further testing of
the first man at this time while He is here; nor thereafter, of
course.
Of Righteousness, Because I Go Away to My Father. We
might have expected the word “unrighteousness” here. But
what we have here is reference to the fact that though Christ
was rejected and crucified, God has righteously acted in
raising Him from the dead and setting Him at His own right
hand. He was raised from among the dead by the glory of
the Father (Rom. 6:4). All that proceeds in moral excellence
from God was brought into action in raising Christ from
among the dead. Christ had glorified the Father and finished
the work He was given to do. The Father answers with
glory, and through glory. It was righteousness to do so.
And the Spirit brings demonstration of this righteousness and
Christ’s consequent actings from the glory.
Of Judgment, Because the Ruler of This World Is Judged.
We need to consider John 12:31 in this connection:
Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of
this world be cast out.
We know that judgment has not yet been executed nor has
the time arrived yet when Satan is cast out. The Lord refers
here to the sentence of judgment: judgment is pronounced,
the sentence will be carried out later. These things that our
Lord had been saying as given in the presentation of Himself
in John’s gospel, have in view the rejection noted in John
1:11 and they anticipated the cross. These judgments are
based on the accomplishment of His work on the cross. The
word “now” has in view the accomplishment of the work on
the cross.
John’s gospel has numerous anticipatory
statements, assuming the work is finished.
So he pronounced sentence on the world in view of the
cross. There was no need for further testing of the first man.
Judgment is already pronounced; the testing was concluded.
Moreover, Satan now has received acknowledgment of two
titles in John’s Gospel in connection with Christ’s rejection:
117
he is the prince of this world and the ruler of this world. He
had not been so designated before but was then so designated
in view of the termination of the probation of the first man.
Returning to John 16:11, the significance is that not only is
sentence pronounced on the world (John 12:31), the world is
judged in its head, its ruler, he being recognized by the Lord
in that position in consequence of the world’s rejection of the
revelation of the Father in the Son, in the power of the Spirit.
In another Scripture Satan is also spoken of in a new way.
He is called the god of this world (age) -- in 2 Cor. 4:4.
standing and responsibility of the first man, as such.
There is another pronouncement in Scripture that resulted
from the fact that the probation of the first man was
concluded at the cross. And this also involves the
recognition that the world is judged, and is judged in its
head, its ruler:
We have been considering that the responsible man, i.e., the
first man, has had his standing in responsibility, as under
probation, ended in the cross. Note carefully that this does
not mean that natural men are no longer connected with the
first man. They are; but the first man’s history, morally
speaking, is closed. God is done with him, except that,
having declared the conclusion from the probation that men
are TOTALLY LOST, He saves; but that is another matter.
Concerning individual persons since the cross, though not
under probation, they are responsible for their works and will
be judged at the great white throne for their works (Rev. 20).
The whole world lieth in the wicked [one] (1 John 5:19).
So the Scriptures declare man to be totally lost, the whole
world guilty before God; this is the conclusion from the
probation/testing. The moral history of the first man is
concluded. His state has been exhaustively and fully
manifested, and finally so by God sending Him Who is full
of grace and truth. God is not now testing man. The first
man has been displaced and God has established the second
man in resurrection and glory -- and He acts in view of that,
forming a heavenly people at present:
. . . and such as the heavenly [one], such also the heavenly
[ones] (1 Cor. 15:28).
. . . (we too being dead in offences,) has quickened us with
the Christ, (ye are saved by grace,) and has raised [us] up
together, and made [us] sit down together in the heavenlies
in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:5, 6).
Meanwhile, the Mosaic age continues on until Christ comes
in glory.
Adamic Standing Now Gone
The next chapter is composed of quotations from J. N. Darby
on the subject of the law and the Christian, finding that the
law has not died, but that the Christian is dead. Having died
with Christ, we are dead to the law.
But it is a mistake to think that the subject of testing
hinges only on whether the law is dead -- as if the law being
intercalated, would leave room for testing by grace now.
The truth is that the Christian is not merely dead to the law.
He is dead to the entire Adamic standing and responsibility
of the first man -- who, as a matter of fact, had been tested
by other things besides the law. Moreover, when the Son
was here in manhood, He was “full of grace and truth” (John
1:14). This was displayed, and He was rejected. The first
man was tested by grace and truth, and rejected Him who
was its full display. And, as we have seen, they rejected the
manifestation of the Father in Him, the Father Whom He had
declared (John 1:18). God is finished with the entire Adamic
What we have seen indicates that those who place an age
of grace into the earthly ages have not apprehended the end
of the first man, and his standing, before God. They have
given him a present place and, moreover, have not seen that
the second man has displaced the first. And surely this must
have a corresponding expression in Christian practice.
What About Responsibility Now?
Now, although the ground of man’s responsibility is over in
the sense of having wholly failed under it, when proved in
every possible way, yet as to moral dealing with each
individual, the responsibility is there to the full; and as an
individual under moral dealing, a man has to go through the
history of the process of responsibility and its failure; but he
goes through it to bring out this, that he is lost already. He
has to prove the truth of God’s verdict that in man there is
no good thing; and so the result of the principle of
responsibility is for him to find out that he is lost, that the
responsibility is over; not as if it was not true, but because
he is lost and ruined, as the man who has lost all his money
by foolish ways. It is important to keep up responsibility,
but the individual is brought to the consciousness that on
that ground it is all up with him. Man is lost. We have spent
every farthing, and have only debts; these we have if that is
any good. It is all over with the first man, and no mending
of him will do: he is lost and ruined; but Christ came to
save the lost.
Now the Second Man is set up. It is not a mending of
the first man, but the substitution of the Second. There is no
improvement or correction of the first man (although we are
practically changed if we come to Christ), but the sins of the
first Adam are all cleared away; and, secondly, the tree
itself is cut down by the roots for faith. In the cross we see
the responsibility met completely; Christ has met all the
failure . . . 72
Probation of the First Man
and the Scofield Age-ism System
Though you may not have thought about it, the Scofield age-
118
ism system is built upon the denial that the testing of the first
man ended at the cross. In other words, if C. I. Scofield had
accepted the truth that the probation of man ended at the
cross, there really would have been no Scofield age-ism
scheme. Larry V. Crutchfield wrote a dissertation on the
views of J. N. Darby regarding ages and dispensations, and
while opting for the Scofield age-ism system, he wrote:
schematic and artificial, depending as it does on the denial of
important truth. The followers of the Scofield age-ism
scheme who say his system is more akin to Isaac Watts than
J. N. Darby are correct. And was Isaac Watts a
dispensationalist because he distinguished some time periods?
Is that really what “dispensational truth” is all about?
The whole idea of responsibility somehow ending with the
cross is completely foreign to Scofield. Here as with the
concept of God’s governmental dealings with humankind,
Scofield applies the principles of dispensational
characteristics more consistently and uniformly throughout
his system. 73
Probation of the First Man
and the Intercalated Age System
First: notice the use of the word “responsibility” in this
statement rather than better expressing what the real issue is:
“testing” or “probation” of man in the Adamic standing.
Natural man remains responsible to God -- but the probation
is over, the first man is judged in the cross, the verdict based
on the probation is rendered, and the second man is
established before God, having displaced the first man. The
first man represents “the responsible man” and the second
man is “the man of purpose.” Because “the responsible
man” was proved incorrigible and irremediably lost, and
since the cross he has been declared to be so, it does not
follow that individual natural men have no responsibility to
God. They will indeed be answerable at the great white
throne judgment according to their works (Rev. 20). The era
of testing ended at the cross and there are no ages of testing
thereafter.
Second: observe that implicit in this is that C. I. Scofield
differed with JND that the testing ended at the cross. Let us
be quite clear about it: JND taught that the probation of the
first man ended at the cross. CIS continued the testing of
man after the first man was judged in the cross -- as did L.
S. Chafer and as do all who hold CIS’s scheme, and as L. V.
Crutchfield does. The New Scofield Reference Bible says:
The point of testing in this dispensation is the Gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ, . . . The continuing, cumulative revelation
of the previous dispensations combines with this fuller
revelation to emphasize the utter sinfulness and lostness of
man and the adequacy of the historically completed work of
Christ to save by grace through faith all who come to God by
him . . . (p. 1162).
Third: according to L. V. Crutchfield’s summary remark,
CIS did not hold JND’s views on “God’s governmental
dealings with mankind” and neither do those who hold to
CIS’s scheme. The development of God’s ways in
government in the earth is an important subject in
dispensational truth.
Fourth: the uniformity of the Scofield age-ism system is
73. The Doctrine of Ages and Dispensations as Found in the Published Works
of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1986,
p. 99.
The intercalated age of grace system of L. S. Chafer means
that Judaism will be reinstated by God after the rapture of the
church:
Upon the completion of the present divine purpose in the
Church, Israel’s Sabbaths will be reinstated (ST4:111).
The earthly story is taken up at the end of this age precisely
where it left off . . . (ST4:167).
. . . the entire system known as Judaism, along with all its
component parts, is, in the purpose of God, in abeyance
throughout the present age, but with definite assurance that
the entire Jewish system thus interrupted will be completed
by extension into the kingdom, the new earth, and on into
eternity to come. 74 As the Jew has been removed from the
special place of privilege which was his in the past age and
leveled to the same standing as the Gentile -- under sin -- so
Judaism has experienced a cessation of all its features until
the hour when the Jewish program begins again; however,
Judaism is to be restored and to complete its appointed course
(ST4:248).
Can he have had any correct idea at all about the subject of
the probation of the first man, a central teaching of the
recovered truth last century, relating to dispensational truth -and specifically the testing of the first man under the Mosaic
Covenant and the law? So Judaism will be reinstated
according to this system that says that the law is dead now
and nailed to the cross. Somehow the law will get off the
cross to which it was allegedly nailed; and not only that, but
Judaism itself will be reinstated so as to be there after the
rapture. So you see that the testing of the first man is not
ended. Surely not, since this system means the Mosaic
System is intercalated. The Mosaic System was sanctioned
of God. Allegedly, the Mosaic System was intercalated. It
follows that the reinstatement of the Mosaic System is from
God, continuing where it left off. Thus, the first man will be
under test as He was before the cross, under the Mosaic
System. And this is supposed to be dispensational truth!
The fact is, then, that this system sets aside the truth that the
testing of the responsible man ended at the cross and that he
is displaced before God by the Man of purpose. It means
there are two simultaneous standings: one for the Christian,
in Christ; the other for the non-Christian -- he having a
standing in the flesh before God. God has both before Him
74. {This last phrase is indeed stunning.}
at the same time; the first man and the second Man.
Since “Judaism has experienced a cessation of all its
features until the hour when the Jewish program begins
again,” then the Mosaic Covenant will be begun again. Is it
unfair to ask, concerning this covenant, how this covenant
will be reinstated, what will mark its reinstatement, and with
whom will this covenant be reinstated, and on what basis?
Not only would that be a setting up of the first man’s
standing under the law, it means that at that point God will
recognize the state of Israel, whereas God is merely watching
(Isa. 18). Israel will not be regathered until after the
appearing of Christ in glory. Meanwhile, what is transpiring
is human effort.
The fact that the Jews will set up a Judaistic system, and
that the remnant will be under the law in their consciences,
does not prove the reinstatement, by God, of Judaism, as
such. Nor does Matt. 24 support the idea that God is the
Author of such a reinstatement, merely because He is tender
towards the consciences of the remnant concerning the
Sabbath.
The Jewish system utilized the law in the testing of the
first man during the probationary times. The Mosaic
Covenant recognized a standing in the flesh before God.
When the Judaistic system became no longer recognized by
God, as a consequence of the cross, the standing of the first
man, a standing in the flesh, was ended. Because the
standing of the first man was ended, it does not automatically
follow that the law itself, as the law, was ended. The
probation was ended; the standing in the flesh was ended;
the Mosaic System was ended as being acceptable to God;
but the law itself did not die, nor was it nailed to the cross.
We will examine the idea of the annulment of the law in
another chapter.
There is a distinction between (1) the first man being
tested under the Mosaic Covenant with this testing coming to
an end at the cross, and (2) the law not being annulled. The
Jewish system was God’s relationship with the first man
under the law in his Adamic standing. The testing involved
the obedience of the first man in his Adamic nature. That
standing in the flesh before God was ended at the cross.
God’s relationship with man under the law in Adamic
standing was then terminated. The probation was completed.
Let us be clear about this. The cross necessarily ended the
Mosaic System, as a system under which the first man had a
standing in the flesh before God. The law had a place in the
Mosaic System of testing the first man in his Adamic
standing. The Mosaic System is no longer recognized by
God because the testing of the first man ended. But it does
not follow that the law itself has been abolished. The law
was left where it was -- God’s requirement for man.
Moreover, the Mosaic age was left where it was. There has
been no change in the age, while God meanwhile forms a
heavenly people. And there will be no change in the age
119
until “the age to come” (the millennium) begins. Nor is
there any testing of the first man now, neither by grace, nor
under the law; nor will there be the reinstatement of what
was God’s relationship with man in Adamic standing under
the law.
But, no doubt unwittingly, that alleged
reinstatement of Judaism, which necessarily involved the
probation of the first man in his standing before God, in the
flesh, under the law, is just what this false age-ism system
really amounts to. It means the reinstatement of the Mosaic
Covenant and the reinstatement of the first man in Adamic
standing in the flesh, under the law. Moreover, under the
system that has man under test by grace now, the first man
has not lost that standing, even though the second man, the
man of purpose, has been established before God. It ought
to be clear that what we are reviewing is not dispensational
truth but a false age-ism scheme.
Additional Implications
of the Idea That the Mosaic System is
Intercalated
The Curse on the Fig Tree
The Fig tree cursed by the Lord (Matt. 11:19; Mark 11:13,
14, 20, 21) is representative of Israel under the law. No
fruit was produced. Leaves, which speak of profession in
Scripture, there were; but no fruit. And from that Fig tree
there never will be fruit:
Let there be never more fruit of thee forever (Matt. 21:19).
There will not be a fruitful Fig tree after the rapture of the
saints, when the Mosaic System is supposed to be reinstated.
Such a notion about reinstatement, which means the
probation of man to see if he can produce fruit for God, is
like supposing the Fig tree will again be under testing to see
if there might be fruit. Are we to suppose that when the
Mosaic System is reinstated by God, that the Lord’s curse is
going to be reversed? No? What then? Is He going to test
for fruit from a cursed tree that has dried up (Mark 11:21)?
The Cutting Down of the Fig Tree
In Luke 13:6-9 there is a parable that indicates that Christ
came seeking fruit from Israel for three years and found
none. The sentence was: “cut it down; why does it render
the ground useless.” But there was another year of exposure
of the state, which, I apprehend, closed with the stoning of
Stephen. How does this bear on God allegedly reinstating
the Mosaic System, which tested Israel to see if fruit would
be borne? Why, that would mean that God would reinstate
that test of Israel just as if sentence had not been pronounced
and as if it had not been executed.
The Olive Tree
120
With the exception of the election of grace among Israel, the
natural branches have been broken out of the Olive tree
(Rom. 11). The natural branches will be grafted in again
(Rom. 11:23) when the Deliverer shall come out of Zion and
turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Rom. 11:26). That, of
course, is when He appears in glory after second half of
Daniel’s 70th week. How does this bear on God allegedly
reinstating the Mosaic System, under which system the
natural branches had not been cut out of the Olive tree before
the cross? Are we to suppose that the cut out branches (Jews
in whom was no faith) will be reinstated by God under the
Mosaic Covenant, under which system (before the cross)
they were not cut out, but in the future they will be under the
Mosaic Covenant but remain in the cut-out position? Or then
when still in unbelief, will they be grafted in again?
Jettison the False Age-ism System
The notion of the reinstatement of the Mosaic System just
where it previously was interrupted is as plain and patent a
denial of the end of the testing of the first man as could be
found. It reinstates in the future the testing of the first man
under the pre-cross Mosaic System. And this age-ism system
has done so by alleging a dispensational testing scheme, that
in actuality destroys this basic dispensational truth that the
testing of the first man is terminated. Why not just jettison
the unscriptural intercalation-of-a-church-age notion? The
fact is that the notion is altogether incompatible with the truth
that the testing of the first man is concluded and he no longer
has a standing before God. This is a very basic truth of
Scripture and the Scofieldian age-ism system, made even
worse by the “intercalation” notion of L. S. Chafer, is at war
with this basic dispensational truth. Of course, what that
means is giving up Scofieldian dispensational age-ism and
recognizing that it does not really represent dispensational
truth.
The End of the Testing and
Standing of the First Man
Explains Two Scriptures
1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened to them [as] types, and have
been written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the
ages are come (1 Cor. 10:11).
This text also assumes that the trial of man is completed as
well as that what transpired under that testing serves as
instruction for the Christian.
The expression, “the ends of the ages,” which will be found
in 1 Cor. 10:11, is rather strange; but to preserve the sense
of the Greek, we could not say, “the last times,” any more
than “the end of the ages,” still less “the end of the world.”
The end of the ages was not yet come; but all the different
dispensations by which God had put Himself in relation with
man, so far as they were connected with man’s
responsibility, had come to one point, and were brought to
an end in the death of the Lord Jesus. After that -- great as
had been His long-suffering -- God established a new
creation. We have therefore used the literal translation,
“the ends of the ages.” 75
Hebrews 9:26
(Heb. 9:26).
For consummation, the Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon (p. 792)
says “completion, close, end.” Under the words “End,
Ending,” W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of new
Testament Words says:
In Heb. 9:26, the word translated “world” (A.V.) is in the
plural, and the phrase is ‘the consummation of the ages.’ It
was the heading up of all the various epochs appointed by
divine counsels that Christ was manifested (i.e., in His
incarnation) “to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
It was the heading up of all the epochs of the testing of man,
actually. 76
There is an “age to come” (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30;
Luke 18:30; Eph. 1:12; Heb. 6:5), the millennium, but that
age is not, of course, included in the statement about the
consummation of the ages. Evidently, then, the phrase
“consummation of the ages” does not mean that there will
not be any more ages. The consummation of the ages refers
to the consummation of the testing of man in the ages up to
the cross. The testing terminated during the Mosaic age.
The moral history of the world is ended, though the world
goes on. The moral history of man is ended, though man
goes on. The moral history of the Mosaic age has ended,
though the Mosaic age goes on.
J. N. Darby brought before the saints the subject of the
testing of the first man, its completion at the cross, and the
consequent setting up of the second man. Let us hear what
he said about the consummation of the ages:
The “end of the ages,” or “consummation of the ages,” are
all the dealings of God with man to test his general
condition. In this general sense the state of innocence comes
in; but the proper connection is what is after the fall, yet not
looking at man as lost, but testing his state and whether he
was recoverable, or was lost and had to be saved. Without
75. J. N. Darby, Collected Writings 13:199.
76. It is interesting to notice the way in which The Bible Knowledge
Commentary (p. 803) by The Dallas Seminary Faculty handles this:
By The phrase “end of the ages” The writer evidently meant the
climax of the Old Testament eras as well as the imminency of the
climax of all things.
I do not know if the writer shared the view that the “age of grace” is
intercalated, but if he did, he seems to have forgotten that the Mosaic age is
to be reinstated after the rapture of the saints. In such a scheme of ages the
climax of the Mosaic age will not be reached until Christ appears in glory.
law; under law; God manifested in the flesh, were the great
features of this. Hence in John 12:31 the Lord says, “Now
is the judgment of this world.” Though there was testimony
there were no religious institutions before the flood, unless
the fact of sacrifices. There were after: government;
promises to Abraham, showing it was grace to one
separated from an idolatrous world and head of a new race;
the law; the prophets; and at last the Son as come, not as
offered. Then God laid the foundation of His own purposes
in righteousness. 77 —
When God had made this plain, before the law, under the
law, by promises, by the coming and presence of His Son,
then the work of God takes the place, for our salvation and
God’s glory, of man’s responsibility -- on the ground of
which faith knows man is entirely lost. This explains the
expression (v. 26) “in the consummation of the ages.”
Now this work is perfect, and perfectly accomplished.
Sin had dishonored God, and separated man from Him. All
that God had done to give him the means of return only
ended in affording him opportunity to fill up the measure of
his sin by the rejection of Jesus. But in this the eternal
counsels of God were fulfilled, at least the moral basis laid,
and that in infinite perfection, for their actual
accomplishment in their results. All now in fact, as in
purpose always, rested on the second {last} Adam, and on
what God had done, not on man’s responsibility, while that
was fully met for God’s glory (cp. 2 Tim. 1:9, 10; Titus
1:1, 2). The Christ, whom man rejected, had appeared in
order to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Thus it
was morally the consummation of the ages.
The result of the work and power of God are not yet
manifested. A new creation will develop them. But man, as
the child of Adam, has run his whole career in his
relationship with God: he is enmity against God. Christ,
fulfilling the will of God, has come in the consummation of
ages, to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and His
work to this end is accomplished. This is the moral power
of His act, of His sacrifice before God; in result, sin will be
entirely blotted out of the heavens and the earth. To faith
this result, namely, the putting away of sin, is already
realized in the conscience, because Christ who was made sin
for us has died and died to sin, and now is risen and
glorified, sin (even as made it for us) left behind. 78 —
The promise, given to Abraham and confirmed to the one
seed (Christ), could not be set aside nor added to by a
transaction 430 years after {i.e., after the giving of the law:
Gal. 3:17}. God had thus bound Himself, but the law came
in by the bye till the Seed should come to whom the promise
was made, that is, Christ. Then its function ceased, and
consequent on Christ’s work, all being sinners, the law
broken, and Christ rejected (the last means by which God
could seek for fruit from man), the attempt only proving
that man hated both Christ and His Father -- that the mind
of the flesh was enmity against God, then God’s
righteousness is revealed without law (the Greek reads
77. Letters 3:442.
78. Synopsis 5:224, 225.
121
“apart from law”), the righteousness of God by faith of
Jesus Christ. Man’s probation as to the history of it, on the
ground of getting good by any means from him, was over.
Now, says Christ, is the judgment of this world {John
12:31}. Hence it was Christ cursed the fig-tree never to
bear fruit. Hence it is that it is said “now once in the end of
the world [the consummation of ages], he hath appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
When I say the probation is over, it is not that man is
not yet dealt with as to receiving the gospel. Of course he
is; but what can be made of man in the flesh? It has been
tried, and it is not now the question whether he can succeed
in making out righteousness for the day of judgment, but,
receiving the truth, find out that he is already lost, and
righteousness and salvation and indeed glory his as
believing in Christ. As a person under probation, 79 he
knows he is a lost sinner, and finds a new life, a perfect
salvation, and divine righteousness in Christ. Now all this
clearly shows the place of the law between the promise and
the coming of the Seed to whom the promise was made, and
how we are created again in Christ Jesus unto good works.
It is no longer the law requiring human righteousness from
flesh to prove what it is, but a new creature and the power
of the Spirit leading us in the path in which Christ walked.
We are sons and to walk as God’s dear children, to put on,
as the elect of God holy and beloved, bowels of mercies -the whole character and walk of Christ. 80
Conclusion
by J. N. Darby
At last God sends His Son. He said, “I have yet one Son, it may
be they will reverence my Son,” and He would try man by His
coming. “They cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.” In
Matt. 21 we find God seeking fruit from that which ought to have
yielded it; and so Christ, when He came, first looked for fruit. He
desired to find (v. 18, 19). “He hungered. And when he saw a
fig-tree in the way he came to it, and found nothing thereon but
leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee
henceforward for ever; and presently the fig-tree withered away.”
He cursed it -- this was nature judged, that flesh should NEVER
produce fruit, for there was nothing in man in the flesh to suit
God. Plenty of profession, outward show, and assumption to be
something, “but leaves only.” “There is none good; no, not one.”
And so He said, “Now is the judgment of this world.” The world
was judged then, although that judgment is not executed yet; in
grace God tarries the execution; but still there was the complete
ending of all human responsibility as regards the record of it.
Each individual may have to come to conviction of it, of course.
But according to the gospel, Christ came to seek and to save
that which was lost, not in probation whether he would be so. All
is proved worthless; for the husbandmen not only killed God’s
Son, who came looking for fruit, but also rejected all His
invitations and Himself come in grace. If God spent His Son in
79. He is not using the word “probation” here in the sense that man, as such,
is under testing. This will be clear to the reader when he reads the summary.
122
the effort to get man’s heart back to Himself, it only showed that
his heart was enmity against God, and would not own Him. He
came with perfect grace, and showed He had power sufficient to
bring every blessing to man; all His miracles were blessing to
man except the cursing of the fig tree, which was not, because,
after all, there must be the judgment of the flesh. The cross then
comes in, and proves not only that man is a sinner (we get that in
his being turned out of Paradise), but that man is in himself
irreclaimable. This closes the first Adam’s history- the history of
man responsible in the flesh, and it was the end of the world; that
is, morally, the world was ended and judged. So the apostle
speaks in Heb. 9 26. “Now once in the end of the world”
(literally “in the end [or consummation] of the ages,” those ages
in which God was testing man in responsibility as a reclaimable
sinner)-”hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself.”
Christ came to seek fruit and they had none for Him. He
came to make a feast, as the expression of God’s grace to them,
and they would not sit at it. In the two parables (Matt. 21 and 22)
there is not only the end of the history of man in responsibility,
but also the rejection of Christ come in grace. The mind of the
flesh is proved to be enmity against God; and we must learn that
there is no good in us. But God does not give up His grace, it
superabounds over all man’s condition as a sinner, and an
irreclaimable one.
This is just the difference between the synoptical Gospels and
John. The first three -- Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- are the
presentation of Christ to man to be received, and with proofs of
power sufficient to remove all the effects of sin; but behind all
you find the difficulty that man is in the flesh, and the mind of the
flesh is enmity against God. John’s testimony starts with this, that
He was not received, and therefore coming in that grace which
was above all the rejection. In chapter 1, “He was in the world,
and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He
came to his own and his own received him not;” so God comes
out in grace. The flesh is looked at in John as having disowned
Christ, and therefore his Gospel all through is election and grace.
There is no such language in the other three Gospels as He uses
here in speaking of man. He goes to the roots and principles of
things in John, and so He says, “Ye are of your father the devil,”
speaking to sinners, and “no man can come to me except the
Father which hath sent me draw him.” But He says, I’ll have my
own sheep notwithstanding what man is. Thus, on the rejection of
His word in ch. 8 and His work in ch. 9, He gathers them,
whether of the Jews or of the Gentiles, to the one Shepherd, and
gives them eternal life. So in John 1 we find Him received by
those who were born of God, not of the will of man. “To as many
as received him to them gave he power [that is, title, authority, or
right] to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
name, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12, 13). There I get
the people of God. Man’s responsibility is closed: he is a lost
sinner; he has been in a state of probation, and it is over.
dealing, a man has to go through the history of the process of
responsibility and its failure; but he goes through it to bring out
this, that he is lost already. He has to prove the truth of God’s
verdict that in man there is no good thing; and so the result of the
principle of responsibility is for him to find out that he is lost, that
the responsibility is over; not as if it was not true, but because he
is lost and ruined, as the man who has lost all his money by
foolish ways. It is important to keep up responsibility, but the
individual is brought to the consciousness that on that ground it is
all up with him. Man is lost. We have spent every farthing, and
have only debts; these we have if that is any good. It is all over
with the first man, and no mending of him will do: he is lost and
ruined; but Christ came to save the lost.
Now the Second Man is set up. It is not a mending of the first
man, but the substitution of the Second. There is no improvement
or correction of the first man (although we are practically changed
if we come to Christ), but the sins of the first Adam are all
cleared away; and, secondly, the tree itself is cut down by the
roots for faith. In the cross we see the responsibility met
completely; Christ has met all the failure, the fruit of the tree of
responsibility, and has glorified God in so doing. Man has
brought in confusion; but Christ came, met the case, and cleared
the scene, and triumphed over all. When He came, God’s
character as to facts was compromised, and there was no escape.
If He had saved none, but at once cast off sinners, it were
righteousness, but there would have been no love. If He had let
all pass, when man was a sinner, and in such sort saved all (which
man would call love, but which would not have been divine love,
for God is holy), where were the righteousness? But Christ came.
Well, surely in the cross there is righteousness against sin, as
nowhere else, yet there is the infinite love of God to sinners.
In Him, in Christ, I get both the trees of Paradise united,
fulfilled in grace, bearing our sins and putting away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself, and becoming life according to
righteousness. I am brought to the discovery of what I am, and
then I see Christ has died on the cross and has taken the whole
thing on Himself. When I see Him-the Son of God-dying on the
cross, I say if this is not righteousness -- judgment against sin -I do not know what is. But whom is He dying for? -- the guilty
sinner. Well, if this is not love, I do not know what is. On the
cross we get every attribute of God perfectly maintained -- His
majesty and truth, as well as His righteousness and love -- every
claim met, and God perfectly glorified in the Person of Christ, the
Lamb of God. He was there making atonement for sin that the
gospel might go out to all the world; and as to believers, bearing
their every sin. The whole thing is met there, and the believer’s
responsibility cleared away, as to sins, that he may enter into
responsibility on a new ground, that of a child of God. He has
met fully, and completely, and absolutely, all the fruit of man’s
eating the tree and all the sins of the believer (his responsibility).
This, of course, does not touch the believer’s responsibility to
Christ or to God as a believer in Christ; for this is of a new order,
and comes in upon a different ground.81
the sense of having wholly failed under it, when proved in every
possible way, yet as to moral dealing with each individual, the
responsibility is there to the full; and as an individual under moral
Chapter 3.7: Is the Law Dead? No . . .
123
Chapter 3.7
Is the Law Dead?
No. And What is the
Christian’s Responsibility?
Comments Collected from J. N. Darby
The Great Truth as to the
Christian and the Law
But another question, as we are all aware, connects itself with
it -- the place the law holds in the ways of God. This connects
itself, or rather identifies itself, with the question -- Is the
purpose, which is inseparable from the grace of God, the first
thing in His ways, or the responsibility of man, that is, grace
or law; in fact, the first Adam or the Second? Here the old
Aristotelian adage becomes true --z!DP¬ J−H 2,TD\"H
JX8@H J−H BDV>,TH. That law in principle, and ultimately the
law as given in fact, identifies itself with, and is the measure
of, responsibility in the first Adam, will hardly be questioned.
That it is not in itself grace is evident. It requires from man,
and does not give to him sovereignly or contrary to what he has
deserved. Yet both are divine and true in their place. It is
because the relative place of each of these is not seen that the
difficulty has, I believe, been insoluble. If both be of God,
both must be maintained: His authority in respect of man's
responsibility; sovereign grace abounding over all. God’s title
in both must be maintained. The difficulty lies in this, that
while God's title is involved in both, in their nature they
contradict one another. To require and to give are necessarily
opposed to one another. If a thousand pounds be due, it is very
just to require it, but it is not grace. If I pay it so as to free the
debtor, when he has no claim on me, it is pure kindness and
grace; only righteousness is satisfied by the payment.
whatever its collateral blessings for the world (and they are
many), it is not of the world, not directly part of its history and
government, though it be developed and find its place in it, and
God's secret and overruling government order all things for
good to chose who are faithful to Him in it. As was true of
Christ, so of Christians, "Ye are not of the world, as I am not
of the world."
But I will proceed to the scripture proof of my proposition,
that the purpose of grace, though revealed after, came before
the responsibility of man (I do not say the predestination of
persons here, but the purposes of grace); while the bringing in
of the accomplishment of that purpose came after the question
of the responsibility was settled in the first Adam . . . 82 —
But we shall find that this is not all. I affirm, then, that
purpose and the Second man and eternal life in Him came
before the question of responsibility in the first, but that
responsibility and law came actually first in the history of man
and of this world; that both meet in Christ, and in Him only
the difficulty is solved -- a difficulty which heathens have
reasoned on as well as Christians, because it lies in the nature
and state of man. When I have unfolded this from scripture,
I will apply it to our question and to the rest of God.
The great truth is this: we have died on the cross to our whole
standing in Adam, and to the law that was the rule for it; and
we are risen with Christ into the new creation in Him, alive
from the dead to give ourselves to God. We have the treasure
in earthen vessels, but our place before God is that-in Christ,
and Christ in us. We have died from under the law, but
therein died to sin, and are alive to God in Jesus Christ our
Lord. We are in a wholly new position, and, though the
righteousness of the law be fulfilled in one whose life Christ is,
it is because he walks after the Spirit, and does not put himself
under law. He cannot (Rom. 7) have two husbands at a time,
Christ and the law. Remark here that I am speaking, as the
passages I refer to are, of practical righteousness, a godly life,
but if we are under the law for that, the law also curses us. As
many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, and
if the curse is not executed, the authority of the law is gone.
If we are under law, we are under a curse, or its authority
destroyed. If Christ has borne the curse, we have died with
Him out of the position in which the law reached us; by the
law dead to law, that we might live to God, crucified with
Christ, yet living, but not we, but Christ living in us. He will
not live wrongly. I do not enter here into failure, or Christ’s
blessed advocacy if we do fail, but only bring out the principles
The truth that the purpose and full promise and grace of
God was before the world, and in the last Adam, the Second
man, not in the first, involves this additional truth -- that,
82. Collected Writings10:270-272.
124
of the life in which we do live to God.
83
from sin and condemnation. 88 —
—
Now the doctrine is that we have died in Christ. The law
supposes living, responsible men, as, of course, as children of
Adam we are. The law has power over a man as long as he
lives. Dead, it cannot deal with him as a present responsible
person. I cannot accuse a dead man, as a present thing, of evil
lusts and self-will. The apostle puts the case of the marriage
relationship {in Rom. 7}; death dissolves it, and leaves the
person free; we have died under law, but so are dead to law,
and now are married to another, a risen Christ, who is, as
man, put in a wholly new place, after the question of sin is
settled, and then gives the experience of the soul under the first
husband, the law, not now as to guilt, but as to the power of
sin dwelling in us. 84 —
The law is not dead. It is still in full force against the
unrighteousness of the man who is under it; but I have died
under it. The law has condemned me, and spent its full curse
on me in Christ. 85 —
. . . {Rom. 7:6} should be, “having died in that wherein we
were held.” It is not the law that is dead, but I am dead. The
law is the jailer, I am the prisoner. The mistake people are
making is that they are killing the jailer instead of the thief.
The jailer is not dead, the thief is. 86 —
However, it is not the law which dies, but Christ died under
the law; for as many as have sinned under the law shall be
condemned by the law; and the law is good if a man use it
lawfully (Rom. 2:12; 1 Tim 1:8).87 —
The Consequence of the Same Truth
In {Romans} chapter 7 he considers the consequences of the
same truth as to the law. The law, he says, has dominion over
a man so long as he lives; he then gives the tie of marriage as
an explanation of it. As long as the first husband lives, the wife
cannot be to another man without guilt. The first husband then
represents the law, the second is Christ raised from the dead.
Christ when living on this earth was Himself under the law;
and thus we cannot be at the same time under the law and united
to Christ raised from the dead. However, it is not the law
which dies, but Christ died under the law; for as many as have
sinned under the law shall be condemned by the law; and the
law is good if a man use it lawfully (Rom. 2:12; 1 Tim. 1:8, 9).
If it were ourselves who were dead under the law, we should be
lost; but Christ died for us. And because He is risen from the
dead, our souls are united to Him, the law having no longer a
hold over a dead man. Therefore, now, Christ, He who is
raised from the dead, is our only husband. Thus the
resurrection of Christ has delivered us from the law, as well as
86. Collected Writings 21.
In {Romans} chapter 7, the apostle applies the doctrine of death
to the law, and he opens it in this way, “Know ye not that the
law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?” It is true
even of human law, and physical death. He proceeds with the
analogy of husband and wife. You cannot have two husbands
at one and the same time -- we cannot have Christ and the law
both at once. We are bound up with one or the other, as a
principle, to God. The woman cannot have two husbands.
“Wherefore ye are become dead to the law by the body of
Christ.” It is not that the law has died, we are dead; the image,
so far, changes, but the bond is broken; and this difference is
blessed, because I hold also my old evil nature for dead, and
this is by the body of Christ. In His death, as we have seen, I
reckon myself dead. The law was never abrogated, and the
principle of it was sanctioned as of God, and those that have
sinned under it will be judged by it. Verse 6 correctly reads:
“but now we are clear from the law, having died in that in
which we were held.” It is not then, that the law is dead, but we
are dead to that by which we were held. Hence, note, death to
sin goes with it. Therefore, the apostle says, we are dead to the
law by the body of Christ, because Christ was made a curse for
us, and died under it, as bearing the curse. But how? Why the
law applied its full curse to Him, as willingly offering Himself,
and He died under it.
The law as a weapon took its full effect on Christ. It did
everything it possibly could, by way of its curse coming on
Christ. The curse of the law was the death of the sinner, and
Christ in grace was made sin for us; therefore, what could the
law do more than spend its full curse on the head of Him, who
was made sin for us, who died under the law? Christ was born
under the law and kept it. He puts Himself under its curse, and
goes through it all, and rises entirely out of it. And faith applies
Christ’s position to the believer. But alas! to how many
Christians law is Christianity. But Christ comes as a Mediator,
and takes my place, my whole cause: and faith has received all
that. He thus was in my place, bringing all the good of it to
myself, as if I were in His place. He is not speaking of union
with Him now, as in Ephesians. I come and have my place
actually and livingly in Christ, for He is the quickening Spirit,
the last Adam, who comes and gives me a portion with Himself
in His present position. All question of the claims of the law
upon the believer has passed away in Christ, for in Christ he has
died to the life and position in which he could be under it; and
now I have a life in Christ after the whole question of law is
settled before God. I am married to another husband, to Him
who is raised from the dead.
The Jew is still fully under the law. The believer has died
to it in Christ. Does this weaken the power of the law? No, not
at all, it has all its power. See Gal. 2:19, 20. 89 —
89. Collected Writings26:68, 69.
The Law Still Has Its Authority 90
Deliverance from the law is not by abrogating its authority; that
could not be, for it was God’s, and was the necessary and right
rule for living man, alive in this world. 91 —
We were in the flesh, and then the motions of sin could be
excited by the law. We reckon ourselves, being baptized to His
death, dead to sin, and alive to God; Christ risen, our life; so
that we walk in newness of life. But this is our deliverance
from law; because He who was under it has died and satisfied
its claims, and come from under them; law having dominion
over a man as long as he lives -- and we are dead, and alive
with a new kind of life, out of the state and place where law
reached us. We have died wholly out of that, as truly as Christ
has died and risen into another, God’s true place for man in
Christ. It is a new creation in us, and by which we are placed
in the new creation, where the old things are passed away and
all things are new. 92 —
I believe the law to be the perfect rule of life for man in the
flesh, but it supposes sin, and applies to sinful flesh, to man in
the flesh; and, being on the principle of requirement, and
rightly so (for it is a very important principle and maintains
God’s rights), it condemns me as to righteousness, and is no
help to me, but the contrary, as to sanctification. If then the law
be holy, just, and good in its contents, why not be under it? why
not maintain it? Because I am then in a relationship with God
which involves condemnation and the power of sin. Law is law,
not grace, and the strength of sin is the law. Maintain the law
as law and you destroy its authority if it be not law to you; and
if it be law to you, it is the strength of sin, and sin will have
dominion over you. It must, as law, have external authority,
God’s authority as such. If you weaken that, you have
destroyed it as a law.
And here I separate from both parties who have discussed
it. They both, in my judgment, really destroy its authority, one
unintentionally, the other declaring it is abrogated, buried, and
the like. The former are obliged to yield a great deal, desiring
90. It is asked, "What is that which subsisted de facto, not by divine
authority, not yet actually set aside, which Christians were called to come out
of?" It was Judaism at Jerusalem. It did subsist de facto till the destruction of
Jerusalem; had no real divine authority after the cross, but was left by the
patience of God, not yet set aside; and Christians, that is, Jewish Christians,
had remained in it by thousands, nay, wanted to subject Gentile Christians to
it, though God did not allow that; and the Jewish Christians were now called
to come out of it. A great many of the priests even, it is said, were obedient
to the faith. This was now to close (Collected Writings 15:223).
{Heb. 8:4}. For if He were on earth He should not be a Priest, seeing that
there are priests that offer gifts according to the law. Therefore, at the very
time when the heavenly priesthood was being unfolded to the Hebrews, there
existed on earth another priesthood, which though no longer recognized, was
yet in operation. This was a time of transition between the two dispensations.
We gather from this that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written before the
fall of Jerusalem. For what object? First, to show the Hebrews their
heavenly privileges; but also to bid them go forth without the camp
(Collected Writings 28:20; see also 27:379, note).
125
to maintain its authority, because they cannot help it; the latter
destroy its authority and make it to be abrogated. I do not abate
one jot or one tittle. I do not raise the question of Gentiles not
being under it, though historically true; because, if not, they
are lawless, and I admit the law to be a perfect rule for man in
the flesh. I say I am not on Gentile ground, though a Gentile;
not –<@:@H 1,è lawless in respect to God, but ¨<<@:@H
Ok4FJè, I do not say under the law to Christ (that is an utterly
false translation), but duly subject to Christ. Yet I do not say
the authority of the law is weakened or done away, but that I
AM DEAD TO IT. The law has power over a man as long as
he lives -- and can have it no longer; and I am no longer alive
in the flesh.
I reject the altering, modifying, the law. I reject
christianizing in it; that is, weakening its legal character by an
admixture of grace that is neither law nor gospel. I maintain its
whole absolute authority. Those who have sinned under it will
be judged by it. It will have its own authority (that is, God’s)
according to its own terms in the day of judgment; but I am not
under it but under grace, not under the schoolmaster but a son,
because faith is come, and I have the Spirit of adoption. I am
on another footing and in another relationship with God; I am
not in the flesh, not in the place of a child of Adam at all, but
delivered out of it by redemption. I have died and risen again;
I am in Christ.
Let us see what scripture teaches on this point. Positive
transgressions are blotted out by the blood of Christ. The law,
we are told, as a covenant of works is gone in Christ’s death.
Now I say that scripture teaches more than that, teaches what
applies to the old man as regards our standing before God, and
that we have, for faith, died out of the place and nature in which
we were under the law. Take the fullest and clearest case -- a
Jew actually under it: I do not doubt it will be practically
realized by a Gentile as a principle. What is the judgment of
law on my old man, my being as in flesh? Condemnation only
as a covenant? No, death. It is not merely a new motive, a new
spring of conduct afforded, by which, law being maintained as
law, I keep it. Law is (2 Cor. 3) a ministration of death as well
as of condemnation. But what then? “I through the law am dead
to the law.” It has killed me, “that I might live to God.” “Add
not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
You might say it is abrogated as a covenant of works but not as
a rule of life, though scripture does not say so: it is a mere
human invention. But you cannot say I am dead to it, but it is
to be my rule of life. That is nonsense.
I am dead to the law by the law. It has done its work and
killed me as regards itself; I do not exist as regards the law, or
it has failed in its power. And I am dead to the law that I might
live to God. If I have not done with it, I cannot live to Him.
And how? “I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless I live, yet
not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I live in the
flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me.” That is not law. When faith came, says
the apostle, we were no longer under a schoolmaster, that is,
under law. Note here: It is not Christ bearing our sins that
delivers from law at all. True deliverance is wrought there as
126
regards our sins. But, in freeing me from law, God is not
delivering me, a living child of Adam, from the dread
consequences of my sins. He is doing another work. It is I who
have died with Christ. Nor is it forgiveness of sin which is
spoken of in such case, although through this death of Christ it
is not imputed. We die to sin -- not sins, not for sins, but to sin.
“He that is dead is justified from sin.”
If the obedience of one has constituted me righteous, why
cannot I say then I may live in sin? How can we that are dead
to sin live any longer therein? The reasoning of the apostle in
the end of Romans 6 is fatal to the use of law as a rule of life.
We have nothing to do here with a question of a covenant of
works. It is a question of life, living in sin, obedience, holiness,
-- what the principle and rule of it is. Am I going to sin, to be
what is called an Antinomian, because I am not under law? No.
What principle, what rule of life, have I? Reckon yourself to be
dead to sin and alive to God. As alive in Christ, I am to yield
my members as instruments of righteousness unto God. I can
do it, obey, not a law, but a person, God Himself absolutely.
Why? I am not under law but under grace. I yield myself. What
an occasion to explain that we were not under it as a covenant
of works but that we were as a rule of life! But now living rules
of life are treated of; how we arrive, and on what principle, at
sin not having dominion over us. It is this (not justification)
which is arrived at by not being under the law. Will that lead
us to sin? Again what an occasion to tell us, No, you know it is
still a rule of life. But no. Silence, ominous silence. They had
been the servants of sin, and what now? They had obeyed from
the heart -- the law from having new motives? No; the form of
doctrine which had been delivered to them. They were not
under law: if they were, sin would have dominion over them.
But they had obeyed the new form of doctrine. They were
slaves to righteousness, slaves to God, and had their fruit unto
holiness. Sin’s wages were death, God’s gift eternal life. The
law does not come in at all, save to shew that those who get
under it would be under the dominion of sin. Nor does the
covenant of works come into the question, but life, walking in
sin, its dominion, obedience, holiness -- but we are not under
the law. But this must be treated of specifically.
The fifth {ch. of Romans} (from verse 12) had shown that
all must be traced for righteousness to the two heads, Adam and
Christ, and that the law had only come in by the by to make the
offence abound. The sixth that we, having died in Christ, are
not under the dominion of that sinful nature, nor under law
which applied to it. The seventh will now fully treat the
question of position under law itself. The apostle declares the
absolute incompatibility of being under the law and Christ at the
same time. He states it in the strongest way. We cannot be
bound to the law any more than a woman can have two
husbands at the same time. Husbands -- for what? To justify as
a covenant of works? No. To obey, to bring forth fruit unto
God. You have nothing about works to justify, nor covenant of
works, but it is the question of what I am bound to, by what law
I am bound.
Is not that it? Read and see. Well, I am become dead to the
law by the body of Christ that I may be to Another. And then,
mind, I am bound to Another who has authority over me, and
I cannot have anything else come in and claim authority. I have
seen Moses and Elias disappear, having served God in their
generation, and have heard the Father’s voice saying, This is my
beloved Son, hear Him. I have been prepared by the sixth
chapter to see that it is not disobedience and living in sin,
because, being dead to sin, I live to God through Christ, and am
obedient to Him. I now find, in detail, that, thus dead as I am,
the obligation to my first husband is closed, become impossible.
I am married to Another; I am bound to Him: the bond and
obligation is absolute. I can hear only Him. I cannot even say,
I go by my second husband to know what my first means and
commands. I have but one: His authority is complete and
absolute. We have nothing to do here with justification or
covenant of works, but -- to whom am I bound? One paper I
looked at tells me the chapter means “The death of Christ
dissolved our old relation to the law as a covenant of works, and
left us at liberty to contract a new relation.” Did anybody ever
read such an effort to elude scripture? -- a new relation with
what? With the law over again? What old relation to the law is
spoken of in the chapter? We have died, so that there is no more
relationship at all, and we are married to another -- Christ
raised from the dead. Where is a covenant of works spoken of
or alluded to in the chapter? Further, what constitutes the whole
point of the chapter, our being dead, is not alluded to by the
author. “Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ.”
If I wanted a proof that I have to do with a writer who had a
system which hindered him from daring to look scripture in the
face, this sentence would be it. But I do not seek controversy,
so I take no further notice of it. I add here it is well known that
in verse 6 we should read as in the margin: “having died in that
in which” -- •B@2"<`J,H not •B@2"<`J@H. Else those who
say the law was abrogated and buried would have this text to
lean upon. If we have then died with Christ, we can also say,
we have been quickened together with Him, and raised up
together, and made sit together in heavenly places.
The Christian is a heavenly person though walking through
the wilderness, and he is the epistle of Christ in it. What is his
rule? To walk as Christ walked. Every part of scripture, law
and all, may furnish him light, and he may use it to convict of
sin, for natural conscience owns the righteousness of it. Paul
governed his conduct by a prophecy of Isaiah 49. And thank
God the New Testament abounds in precepts to guide us. Nor
are we to let slip the word commandment. Because if we did
everything right, nothing would be right if it were not
obedience, and command expresses authority. Still we ought to
be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and
spiritual understanding. The spiritual man judges all things. I
can only speak of the principle and standard here. I may
surprise perhaps my readers when I say that the conduct of God
is made our standard, as being made partakers of the divine
nature. It is not the perfect rule for man in the flesh, but the
divine conduct for man in the Spirit. The apostle can say,
“When we were in the flesh,” and describe in the seventh of
Romans the conflicts of a renewed man who is not set free by
known redemption, but is still under his first husband -- the law,
knowing it is spiritual, consenting to it, delighting in it, but
never keeping it. But he can, when he has known deliverance,
say, “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath set me
free,” knowing that God has not forgiven but condemned sin in
the flesh, but in Christ a sacrifice for sin, and that, now a
Christian, not in the flesh but in the Spirit, his place and
standing are changed -- alive thus in Christ, created again in
Christ Jesus unto preordained good works that he may walk in
them, renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created
him. What are these good works? I have said, scripture has
said, he, perfect before God in Christ, is to imitate God. Where
to find the image of this in a man? Christ is the image of the
invisible God. United with Him in heaven, the Christian is to
walk like Him on earth, in grace as manifesting God, looking to
Him above, and so changed into His image from glory to glory,
as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Let us see the scripture account of this. First, the Father’s
name being revealed, not the legal name of Jehovah, we are
to be perfect as our Father which is in heaven is perfect. He
loves them that do not love Him, He is kind to the unthankful,
and to the evil. But more precisely in Eph. 4, 5, this is fully
developed.
We have subjectively and objectively the
pre-ordained walk of the Christian: subjectively -- the putting
off the old man, and putting on the new, and, secondly, our
bodies being the temple of the Holy Ghost, the not grieving the
Spirit of God by which we are sealed to the day of redemption;
then the objective rule -- Be ye kind, tender-hearted, forgiving
one another, as God in Christ hath forgiven you. We have then
the two essential names of God, given as that to be realized, and
Christ presents the realization of them in man: “Be ye imitators
of God as dear children, and walk in love as Christ hath loved
us, and given himself for us, a sacrifice and an offering to God
for a sweet smelling savor.” We are to be imitators of God, His
love in Christ being our pattern.
93
And here we find the superiority of the Christian principle
to law in its very nature. Law taught me to love my neighbor
as myself -- made my love to self the measure of my duty to my
neighbor. Christianity looks for having no self at all, but giving
up ourselves for our neighbor. Two principles form the
perfectness of this: He gave Himself for others and to God.
This last is needed that the principle may be perfect. The
affection must have a perfect object as well as be perfectly, and
in order to be perfectly, free from self, and perfect in itself.
For affections have their character and value from their object.
But the principle of legal perfection is another, and wholly short
of this. The rule was not what a man ought to be as such, but
to be an imitator of God as a dear child of his Father, Christ
being the manifestation of love in this and the measure of it. To
compare the mutual love of oneself and another, and make it the
same as the absolute self-devotedness of Christ, is a mere abuse
of terms, because the word love is used in both. The other
name of God is Light. We are light in the Lord: we are to walk
93. This is the name of Christian relationship in eternal life, and was revealed
by Christ even when here. Jehovah was the name of relationship for Israel,
Almighty (El Shaddai) for the Patriarchs. The Most High will be God’s
millennial name.
127
as children of light. Again Christ is referred to: “Christ shall
give thee light.” Thus perfect love in self-sacrifice, imitating
God therein, walking as being in Christ, in and of the light
which manifests everything, Christ being the model of it. Such
is the rule of life of the Christian. He is dead, and his life hid
with Christ in God. If he believes, it is Christ lives in him, he
is not living (alive) in this world. People may resist such views,
but, if they do, they must resist scripture. The great secret of
all is, that we are not, as before God, and responsible to Him,
alive in the Adam life at all. Christ is our life -- Christ who is
risen. I am dead, have been crucified with Christ, to sin or the
flesh and the lusts thereof, to the law by the body of Christ, to
the world, and the world to me. The whole scene of a living
man, this world in which the life of Adam develops itself, and
of which the law is the moral rule, I do not belong to, before
God, more than a man who died ten years ago out of it. I come,
having the life of Christ, having the Son and so have life, into
the midst of it, to walk in the path which He has traced through
it. And now, what is the Sabbath the rest of? This creation. I
am not of it. It is a new creation I am of, old things are passed
away. If I had known Christ after the flesh, as belonging to this
world, down here and under the law, I know Him no more.
And what is the rest of the new creation to which I belong as
having died and risen, Christ being my life? The heavenly rest
of which the Lord’s-day is the intimation, the day of Christ’s
resurrection. 94 —
True Christian Responsibility Flows From
the Place we are In; Not from the Law
Now, although the ground of man’s responsibility is over in the
sense of having wholly failed under it, when proved in every
possible way, yet as to moral dealing with each individual, the
responsibility is there to the full; and as an individual under
moral dealing, a man has to go through the history of the
process of responsibility and its failure; but he goes through it
to bring out this, that he is lost already. He has to prove the
truth of God’s verdict that in man there is no good thing; and
so the result of the principle of responsibility is for him to find
out that he is lost, that the responsibility is over; not as if it was
not true, but because he is lost and ruined, as the man who has
lost all his money by foolish ways. It is important to keep up
responsibility, but the individual is brought to the consciousness
that on that ground it is all up with him. Man is lost. We have
spent every farthing, and have only debts; these we have if that
is any good. It is all over with the first man, and no mending
of him will do: he is lost and ruined; but Christ came to save
the lost.
Now the Second Man is set up. It is not a mending of the
first man, but the substitution of the Second. There is no
practically changed if we come to Christ), but the sins of the first
Adam are all cleared away; and, secondly, the tree itself is cut
128
down by the roots for faith. In the cross we see the
responsibility met completely; Christ has met all the failure, the
fruit of the tree of responsibility, and has glorified God in so
doing. Man has brought in confusion; but Christ came, met the
case, and cleared the scene, and triumphed over all. When He
came, God’s character as to facts was compromised, and there
was no escape. If He had saved none, but at once cast off
sinners, it were righteousness, but there would have been no
love. If He had let all pass, when man was a sinner, and in such
sort saved all (which man would call love, but which would not
have been divine love, for God is holy), where were the
righteousness? But Christ came. Well, surely in the cross there
is righteousness against sin, as nowhere else, yet there is the
infinite love of God to sinners.
In Him, in Christ, I get both the trees of Paradise united,
fulfilled in grace, bearing our sins and putting away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself, and becoming life according to
righteousness. I am brought to the discovery of what I am, and
then I see Christ has died on the cross and has taken the whole
thing on Himself. When I see Him -- the Son of God -- dying on
the cross, I say if this is not righteousness -- judgment against sin
-- I do not know what is. But whom is He dying for? -- the
guilty sinner. Well, if this is not love, I do not know what is.
On the cross we get every attribute of God perfectly maintained
-- His majesty and truth, as well as His righteousness and love -every claim met, and God perfectly glorified in the Person of
Christ, the Lamb of God. He was there making atonement for
sin that the gospel might go out to all the world; and as to
believers, bearing their every sin. The whole thing is met there,
and the believer’s responsibility cleared away, as to sins, that he
may enter into responsibility on a new ground, that of a child of
God. He has met fully, and completely, and absolutely, all the
fruit of man’s eating the tree and all the sins of the believer (his
responsibility). This, of course, does not touch the believer’s
responsibility to Christ or to God as a believer in Christ; for this
is of a new order, and comes in upon a different ground.
But in the cross God’s character is not only maintained but
fully glorified; for the death of Christ is the perfect putting away
of sin 95 and of all that belonged to the first man. We, therefore,
as believers, are crucified with Christ; we are not in the flesh
but in Christ. We are dead to the condition in which we were as
children of Adam, and we are in a new position altogether; in
Christ we are children of God. All that we were has been met
and settled on the cross, and a new life has been given to us, so
that now we are not in the first Adam but in the Second Man.
The fruit of the first is all taken away, and the tree itself cut up
by the roots for our faith; we have died with Christ, been
crucified with Him. The responsibility is met by the atonement,
and He Himself is the eternal life; so the two trees of Paradise
are fully reconciled.
Now the counsels of God come out, because He could not
95. This, in its fullest effect, reaches, I doubt not, to the new heavens and the
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. But the believer knows its
efficacy for himself now. I do not here speak of those who believe not. They
are doubly guilty.
bring them out till redemption was accomplished, and
righteousness fully established, and in respect of all that, too,
which called it in question. The ground we stand on is not now
God’s forbearance, because what we have is not promise, but the
accomplishment of promise. It was forbearance He exercised
towards the Old Testament saints, passing over their sins, but it
is in the atonement we see His righteousness in doing this. Now
God is righteous in saving a poor sinner-just and the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus; and because righteousness is now
established, my standing is not founded on responsibility as a
child of Adam, but on redemption as a son of God. It is a new
footing and foundation. Not only are my sins put away, but that
which has put them away has so vindicated the righteousness of
God, and glorified Him, that man has a place at the right hand
of God in glory.
With regard to this Christ could appeal to the Father
righteously to give Him that place. “I have glorified thee,” He
said, “glorify thou me,” and Jehovah answered, “Sit thou on my
right hand, till I make thy foes thy footstool.” This puts the Son
of man in the glory of God; and God has given us a place and
standing in Him, clear of all the responsibility of the first Adam.
But there is responsibility now for us, and it flows from and is
measured by this very standing.
We have thus the two trees in grace -- the tree of life, and
the tree of responsibility. Under the law we saw it was
responsibility first, and then life. In grace it is first life, then
responsibility.
Not only are my sins gone, but I and everything belonging
to me buried in the death of Christ; the “I” merged into Him as
to life, as it is written, “Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me,” and
the life I now live is in the Risen One. He rose, and is now
seated in glory in virtue of what He did as man, and has sent
down the Holy Ghost to unite to Himself as Head (having taken
this place as man in heaven) believers as members of His body,
and to reveal all the counsels that were about us before the world
was; and this is the church. The Christian is united with Christ,
where He now is, we are seated there, and blessed with all
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Him. The Head is there,
and we, the members, are, by the Holy Ghost, united to Him.
Now comes in the responsibility of the Christian. True
responsibility flows from the place we are in -- not as having to
get into the place, but as being in it. Seeing our place we can
learn what our responsibilities are; else we never can assume
responsibility. You are not responsible to me as children or
servants, because you are not my children or my servants. If
you were my servant, your duties and responsibilities would flow
from your being so. You have totally failed as a child of Adam;
and now, if a believer, God says you are a child of God. Well,
now, let us see if you are walking as a child of God in all your
ways. This is our responsibility. We are heirs of God and
joint-heirs with Christ, and are left in this world to shew out the
character of such. We are the epistle of Christ, and have to see
that we are a good one, known and manifestly so before all men.
Christ should be so seen in us that he who runs may read.
If you are in Christ, Christ is in you; and our place is a
settled one. Christ is before God for us, and we are before the
world for Christ. What is laid on us is not responsibility before
God as a child of Adam, but as a child of God. I am not in the
flesh, but in the Spirit, and the life of Jesus is to be manifested
in our mortal bodies. There is our responsibility, and it is an
individual thing. You will see the individual put always first in
scripture, because the individual must be put right before there
can be any church. The epistle to the Romans deals with the
individual, so also does the first chapter to the Ephesians, till we
come to the last verses. We always have truth brought out for
the individual before corporate blessing is unfolded or
responsibility is enforced. We are saved by Christ individually
and owned as brethren.
This leads on to relationship with Christ and with one
another. Our relationship with the Father is that of children;
our relationship with Christ, first, that He is not ashamed to call
us brethren, and then as members of His body, and so baptized
into one body by the Holy Ghost. This is the effect of God’s
work, and we are created unto good works, which God has
fore-ordained for us. The ground we stand on is not our works:
Christ stood on that ground once for us, and if we did we should
be lost. We stand on Christ’s work and are saved, and the Holy
Ghost has come down and united us to Christ as His members;
and he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. 96 —
Where Does Christian Responsibility
Begin? Not in the Law
Christ was there {with His disciples} and could not be in them.
He was with them but had to go away. The Holy Ghost is in us,
and stays with us. Christ was amongst them here, but not in
them. He was absolutely alone in that sense -- most accessible,
affable, but alone. This other Comforter stays here, abides with
us and in us. It is a thing that is only known by having it; but
the effect of having it is that I know I am in Christ. He gives the
consciousness of being in Christ. There is no condemnation to
them that are in Christ Jesus. On the other side we know Christ
is in us. Thus we get our full complete blessedness before God
on one side, and the measure of our practical responsibility down
here on the other. I am accepted in the Beloved; I have got a
new place -- not in the flesh at all. Responsibility as a child of
Adam is completely and entirely over -- not as a Christian, but
as a man. There is none righteous no not one. I do not want the
day of judgment to tell me what I am. The Son of Man came to
seek and to save that which is lost. It is not a state of probation.
Man has plenty of debts and not a farthing. You come and tell
me how to conduct myself, but I have nothing to live on. My
standing and responsibility is that of a child of God, in Christ not
in the flesh. Christ has answered for my sins not in the first man
but in the second; the debts are all cleared. There is no
condemnation to them that are in Christ. There is the blessed
place I am in. The sealing of the Holy Ghost comes at the
recognition of the grace of the forgiveness of sins. There we are
white as snow. The Holy Ghost says “I will dwell in that man.”
129
God cannot seal an unbeliever, He seals a believer. It is a
blessed place, high above angels. When once I believe that the
Son of God became a Man and died for me, glory is only a
natural consequence. Nothing is too good for us; all the rest is
easy to believe.
The other side of that is where Christian responsibility
begins. Saved, in Christ, sealed with the Holy Ghost, there is no
responsibility; I could not get into a better place in heaven. But
if that is true another thing is true: if I am in Christ, Christ is
in me down here, and I say, now let Him be seen. Conflict is
consequent upon that. The Lord does not enter into conflict with
Satan for us, till He takes His place. My place is settled in
Christ and my duties are settled by Christ being in me. It is not
a question of what I am doing, but of Christ being in me. I am
to manifest the life of Jesus and nothing else: it requires
watchfulness and diligence. I ought to walk as He walked. We
are sanctified to the obedience of Christ. What is the obedience
of Christ? He never had a will of His own. The Father’s will
was the source of all He did. In Matt. 4 Satan said, “If thou be
the Son of God, command.” “Nay, I came to obey and serve -not to command -- I have no word out of God’s mouth.” The
obedience of Christ was having God’s will as the origin and
motive of all He did, not only the rule. “If I am a Son I do not
depart from the place of a servant.” That is the way Satan was
perfectly silenced. There is no harm in eating when hungry.
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” He can do nothing without
that word, and Satan can do nothing.
It is Christ who is our life dwelling in us, that life living “by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If I had
a direction telling me all I ought to do, it would not do. I want
to know His will to test my state. If God has not a will I am to
do nothing. But it needs spirituality to discern His will -- “filled
with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual
understanding.” When I am uncertain, there is something that
hinders, and I detect it. If the eye is single the whole body is full
of light. As I get then the full blessedness of being in Christ, so
I get Christ in me. That brings on the present dealing and
government of God with us in this path. “If ye love me keep my
commandments.” “He that hath my commandments and keepeth
them, he it is that loveth me . . . and I will love him and
manifest myself to him.” We get the positive enjoyment of the
place; and that does depend upon the conduct -- the place does
not. “Grieve not the Spirit of God.” If I grieve Him He grieves
me, and the effect of the Spirit’s presence in me is to make me
unhappy -- conscious of having grieved Him if in disobedience.
Some people are afraid of commandments; I am not. If I did
everything right, and it was not obedience, I should have done
nothing right. Commandment brings in authority and therefore
I like it. He adds “If a man love me He will keep my words.”
There must be obedience. He leads me in the path (Misc. Writ.
4:56, 57).
130
Chapter 3.8: Is the Law Dead? Yes, Says L. S. Chafer
131
Chapter 3.8
Is the Law Dead?
Yes, Says L. S. Chafer
Introduction
In chapter 3 we looked at some comments by JND dealing
with the death of the Christian with Christ and the result, a
new place before God, in Christ. The Christian is dead but
the law is not. It remains where it was. Indeed, it is
presently usable:
Now we know that the law [is] good if anyone use it
lawfully . . . (1 Tim. 1:9).
the age of the law. At the removal of the Church when the
Lord comes again to receive His own, the law age will be
resumed and continue for that period known as Daniel’s
seventieth week (Dan. 9:24 27) -- which week is generally
conceded to be seven years. Israel’s judgments began with
her dispersions, were continued in the destruction of
Jerusalem and her final scattering among the Gentiles and
will end with that hour of her greatest affliction in the
coming tribulation. The greatest of her sins is the rejection
of her Messiah at the first advent of Christ.
Indeed, it acted on Paul (Gal. 2:19, 20).
6. The Dispensation of the Church.
But the “completion of the age” in “the end of the age”
was seen by LSC not to be part of the alleged “age of grace”;
therefore the Mosaic age, which allegedly was terminated by
the death of Christ, would have to be in force again during
that future period. His scheme, then, is that the Mosaic age
was interrupted (put in abeyance) and will be implemented
again. Thus he has the “age of grace” among the earthly
ages, with the law in abeyance now. Observe this: I am
using the word abeyance, which he uses, but his teaching
means much more than that, as we shall see. His teaching
really means that the law was crucified. Also, as part of the
Scofield system, he holds that man is being tested now -- man
is under probation now.
Beginning with the death of Christ and the day of Pentecost,
a new responsibility is imposed on all men -- both Jews and
Gentiles. This responsibility is personal and calls for the
acceptance by each individual of the grace of God toward
sinners as it has been provided in Christ, with good works
as the fruit of salvation. While the primary purpose of God
in this dispensation will be perfectly accomplished in the
gathering out of the Church, the course and end of this age
is characterized by an apostate church and a Christ rejecting
world. The judgment will be personal as has been the
responsibility. The dispensation of the Church continues
from the cross of Christ and the advent of the Spirit to
Christ’s coming again to receive His own. 97
The Law Allegedly Now in
Abeyance and to be Reinstated
Elements of the Allegation
THE LAW IN ABEYANCE NOW
Let us hear a summary of L. S. Chafer’s view here:
5. The Dispensation of the Law.
This lengthened period began with Israel’s assumption of
the law at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:8), was characterized by
fifteen hundred years of unfaithfulness and broken law, and
terminates with the Great Tribulation in the earth. Its course
was interrupted by the death of Christ and the thrusting in
of the hitherto unannounced age of the church. Thus the
church age, while complete in itself, is parenthetical within
Implicit in the remarks about the dispensation of the law is
that the law is now in abeyance, and is so for all men.
In his Systematic Theology (hereafter ST) LSC makes
frequent reference to the fact that the law is in abeyance:
. . . the law as an ad interim system did come to its end and
a new divine economy superseded it (ST4:18).
. . . there is the most conclusive teaching concerning the
complete ending of the law by the death of Christ
(ST4:111).
The passing of the law of Moses is the Explicit Teaching of
the New Testament Scriptures (ST4:234).
At the cross, it will be seen, the divine application of the
law ceased even for Jews . . . (ST4:237).
The complete passing, through the death of Christ, of the
97. Major Bible Themes, Dunham: Findley, pp. 100, 101, 1953.
132
reign of the Mosaic Law, even for Israel, is the extended
testimony of Scripture (ST4:240).
It appears to me that what lies at the base of this is the refusal
to acknowledge that the end of the probation/testing of man
ended at the cross, and thus closed the first man’s moral
history.
THE LAW AND JUDAISM REINSTATED
AGAIN AT THE END OF THE AGE
Upon the completion of the present divine purpose in the
Church, Israel’s Sabbaths will be reinstated (ST4:111).
The earthly story is taken up at the end of this age precisely
where it left off (ST4:167).
. . . the entire system known as Judaism, along with all its
component parts, is, in the purpose of God, in abeyance
throughout the present age, but with definite assurance that
the entire Jewish system thus interrupted will be completed
by extension into the kingdom, the new earth, and on into
eternity to come. 98 As the Jew has been removed from the
special place of privilege which was his in the past age and
leveled to the same standing as the Gentile -- under sin -so Judaism has experienced a cessation of all its features
until the hour when the Jewish program begins again;
however, Judaism is to be restored and to complete its
appointed course (ST4:248).
Can he have had any correct idea at all about the subject of
the probation/testing of the first man, a central teaching of the
recovered truth last century, relating to dispensational truth -and specifically the testing of the first man under the Mosaic
Covenant and the law? So Judaism is reinstated by this
system that says that the law is dead now and nailed to the
cross. Somehow the law will get off the cross to which it was
allegedly nailed; and not only that, but Judaism, as such,
will be reinstated by God Himself, so as to be in force after
the rapture. What are the implications of this notion?
˜ It means there will be a God-sanctioned reinstatement of
the sacrifices under the old Mosaic System. What is the
character of such sacrifices? They are not millennial
sacrifices (Ezek. 40-48) carried out under the
Melchizedek priesthood, when that Priest sits upon His
throne (Zech. 6:13) and therefore are necessarily
memorial. But in addition to that, LSC’s view is that
there are sacrifices during the tribulation period carried
out under a reinstated Mosaic System. The nature and
meaning to God of these reinstated, tribulation-period
sacrifices does not appear to have been addressed by those
who hold to the intercalation of an age of the church! 99
The fact that the Jews will set up a JudaisticSsystem then,
and that the godly remnant will be under the law in their
consciences, does not prove the reinstatement of Judaism,
98. {This last phrase is indeed stunning.}
99. Happily, a number of Scofieldian writers whom I queried about Godsanctioned sacrifices during Daniel’s 70th week reject the idea that God
sanctions those sacrifices.
as such, by God, as having his sanction for the
reinstatement. It is amazing that anyone calling
themselves dispensationalist would adhere to the idea of
the intercalation of a church age that necessarily
involves the God-sanctioned reinstatement of the Mosaic
System. The reader should perceive clearly that the idea
of the intercalation of a church age means that when the
pretribulation rapture takes place there is necessarily a
reinstatement of what was intercalated. It was Judaism
that was intercalated by God, in this system, as hence
Judaism will be reinstated by God.
The Jewish system utilized the law as part of the testing of the
first man during the probationary (pre-cross) times. The
Mosaic Covenant recognized a standing in the flesh before
God. When the Judaistic system became no longer recognized
by God as a consequence of the cross, that means that the
standing of the first man, a standing in the flesh, was ended.
Because that was ended, it does not automatically follow that
the law itself, as the law, was ended. The probation was
ended; the standing in the flesh was ended; the Mosaic System
was ended as being acceptable to God; but the law itself did
not die, nor was it nailed to the cross.
There is a distinction between the first man being tested
under the Mosaic Covenant, and this coming to and end at the
cross -- and the status of the law. The Jewish System was
God’s relationship with man, under law, in his Adamic
standing. The testing involved the obedience of the first man
in his Adamic nature. That standing in the flesh before God
was finished at the cross. God’s relationship with man under
the law in Adamic standing was then terminated. The
probation was completed. That leaves the law where it was.
Moreover, the Mosaic age was left where it was. There has
been no change in the age, while God meanwhile forms a
heavenly people. And there will be no change in the age until
“the age to come” (the millennium) begins. The Mosaic age
is terminated by the introduction of the age to come. There is
no testing of the first man, as such, now, neither by grace, nor
under the law; nor will there be the reinstatement of what was
God’s relationship with the first man in Adamic standing under
the law in the Mosaic System.
˜ No doubt unwittingly, that reinstatement of the probation
of the first man in his standing before God, in the flesh,
under the law, under the Mosaic System, is just what this
false system of an intercalated age of grace really amounts
to. It means the reinstatement of the Mosaic Covenant and
the reinstatement of the first man in Adamic standing under
the law -- though in reality, since the Scofieldian system
itself has man under test now, the first man has not lost that
Adamic standing in the flesh, according to this system,
even though the second man, the man of purpose, has been
established before God. It ought to be clear that what we
are reviewing is not dispensational truth but a false age-ism
scheme that is at war with important truth.
The first man, in the persons of the Jews, was tested by grace
in the person of the Son when here, as full of grace and truth
(John 1:14). God most certainly did test man in every way and
the result is stated in John 15:24. It is an insult to the Father
and Son to say that the testing of man continues, even though
insult is not intended. The cross, the express rejection of the
revelation of the Father in the Son, is the great turning point in
the ways of God. The first man was tested by grace in the
Son’s person. This is also true concerning the kingdom. The
kingdom was offered and rejected. It was there in His person.
The first man was tested by the kingdom in the Son’s person.
It is pseudo-dispensationalism to carry
the testing of the first man beyond the cross.
We will now turn to look at passages alleged to prove that the
law itself is dead. Keep in mind that the “intercalation” scheme
really means that God will resurrect the law for the reinstatement
of Judaism after the rapture.
Examination of the Passages
Alleged to Prove that
the Law is Dead
Even if the law is dead now, which it is not, the intercalation
of a church age must be rejected, as seen above. But let us
review a group of passages that LSC asserted show that “the
law has passed”:
. . . these Scriptures, by overwhelming revelation, assert
that the law has passed, through the death of Christ. They
assert that the law has ceased as a means of justification, 100
and as a rule of life for the one who is justified (John 1:1617; Rom. 6:14; 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:1-18; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14;
Gal. 3:19-25) (ST4:108).
The doctrine of Scripture is that the Christian is dead; he has
died to law and sin. This is true of him in Christ. Romans is
express and plain about it, along with other Scriptures. But
this has proved to be insufficient for Scofieldian ageism. And
rather than give up the idea of an earthly “age of grace” among
the earthly ages; rather than accepting the truth that the testing
of the first man was ended at the cross; and rather than giving
the development of God’s ways in earthly government its place
also; the system is maintained and augmented with additional
errors. Let us look at the Scriptures referenced above that
allegedly show that the law is dead.
133
fulfilled, superseded, and terminated in the first advent of
Christ (ST4:240).
If “the whole Mosaic System was fulfilled,” perhaps he had
something in mind to account for why he said it would be
reinstated at the end of the age in spite of having been
fulfilled, but I am not aware that he has explained himself on
this point. He had cited this text when he claimed that “these
Scriptures, by overwhelming revelation, assert that the law
has passed, through the death of Christ” (ST4:108). Not only
does this not overwhelmingly support his thesis, it indicates
no such thing at all. John 1:17 does not tell us the law is
ended. Rather, it tells us that Christ brought something else.
Note that in one statement he speaks of “the first advent
of Christ” and in the second of “the death of Christ.” Which
is it? He did not become full of grace and truth at his death.
The fact is that when Christ walked here, He was full of
grace and truth (John 1:14). This was as man here, while
under the law of Moses! So grace and truth in its fulness, in
His person, was here during the time LSC acknowledges that
the law was in force. I suggest that John 1:17 states a
contrast -- not termination, fulfillment or the superseding of
law. This latter has been read into the passage to bolster an
erroneous system. Also, see the long footnote to this verse in
JND’s translation.
JOHN 15:25
. . . but now they have hated both me and my Father.
But that the word written in their law might be fulfilled,
They hated me without a cause (John 15:25).
LSC’s comments on this passage serve as an example of how
a Scripture can be looked at when under the power of an
erroneous system. What supports the false system seems to
be found everywhere in Scripture. It is true that the upper
room discourse looks beyond the cross, as he noted; but then,
commenting on Christ’s have said “their law,” not ‘your
law,’ he makes the stunning leap to his system by saying:
By this Scripture not only is the whole law system definitely
declared to be done away during the dispensation of grace
. . . (ST4:245).
The Lord cited a fulfillment from the very law that those that
hated him professed to keep. It strikes me as very morally
appropriate to refer to the law of those that hated him as
“their law.” Citing a fulfillment of the law in no way
announces its end.
Passages in Romans
ROMANS 6:14
Passages in John
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not
under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).
JOHN 1:16, 17
Concerning this passage LSC said:
According to this passage, the whole Mosaic System was
100. Strange; the law never was given as a means of justification.
Verse 6 informs us that our old man has been crucified with
Christ. What we were in our standing in Adam has thus been
dealt with. Moreover, v. 7 adds that “he that has died is
justified from sin.” And v. 11 tells us to “reckon yourselves
134
alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Clearly, the context is not
about the law being dead but rather that we have died. The
passage does not support, in any way whatsoever, the false
notion that the law has died.
ROMANS 7
In Rom. 7, the expression “the law” and “law” are used. A
person who has “the inner man” (v. 22) is in view, i.e., one
who has the new nature but is not delivered (v. 24). He is
not set free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2)
working in his members. In conscience, he is before God on
the basis of law. That means he is before God for
acceptability on the basis of performance of some kind -“law” -- as a principle of relationship. This may, of course,
take the form of “the law,” i.e., obviously, the law of
Moses. The law of Moses is not merely the principle of law,
but “the law.” In the introductory part of Rom. 7 the apostle
uses an example of two men and a woman. Who in this
passage died? Verses two and three, for illustrative
purposes, takes the common case of marriage and say a
woman cannot “be to” two husbands at the same time, but
“if” the husband died, only then is she free to marry another.
Paul’s point was that one cannot “be to” both the law and
Christ at the same time. And yet when it comes to his
statement of who actually died, did he say the first husband
died? No. Rather, Paul’s brethren died (Rom. 7:4). And
Christ died. No, the law did not die. Yet LSC wrote:
The law, or obligation, of the wife to her husband ceases
with his death. Should she be married to a second husband,
she is then under an entirely new obligation. The sacrificial
death of Christ was the ending of the reign of the law,
which law is likened to the first husband (ST4:241).
First, it is directly taught in Scripture that the Christian is
dead with Christ, crucified with Christ. In the case of the
Jew under the law, that is how he stands with respect to the
law; he is crucified with Christ -- and therefore not in
connection with the first husband. Why introduce here the
notion that the first husband died? That is not the point to
the passage, nor does it even imply such a thing. Moreover,
if the law had died, one might be then under some other
obligation, who knows what? But we are under Christ.
How do we know that? -- because it is we who have died
with him. This is all simple and clear, taught in the Word.
But LSC has brought his system to the passage, importing
into it the notion that the first husband died when in fact it
was the woman who died, and so has no obligation to the
first husband. How is it that LCS will have it that the first
husband died? What he really believes is that both the
woman and the first husband died. There is no such idea in
the passage.
ROMANS 7:6
But now we are clear from the law, having died in that in
which we were held, so that we should serve in newness of
spirit, and not in oldness of letter (Rom. 7:6).
Ever ready to find the law dead, LSC wrote, concerning
“newness of Spirit” and “oldness of letter,” that these
expressions:
. . . indicate different divine economies which characterize
two different dispensations. The age now past is marked off
by the letter of the law . . . (ST6:123).
Rom. 7 is not about different economies and proof that the
law is dead. This text is about the fact that we, being dead
to the law, are in the position of being able to serve in
newness of spirit, not a service as under the law. It is selfevident from the passage that the believer, not the law, is
stated to be dead.
ROMANS 10:4
For Christ is the end of [the] law for righteousness to every
one that believes (Rom. 10:4).
Charles L. Feinberg says this verse means that:
The Law as an active force has ceased to exist, because the
death of Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. 101
Arnold Fructenbaum wrote:
The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law
of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of
Christ; in other words, the law in its totality no longer has
authority over any individual. This is evident from Romans
10:4 . . . .
The Greek word for “end,” telos, can mean either
“termination” or “goal.” However, the evidence clearly
favors the meaning of “end.” 102
Charles C. Ryrie stated:
All interpreters of Scripture are faced with the clear
teaching that the death of Christ brought an end to the
Mosaic law (Rom. 10:4) . . . 103
Though it is true that our Lord fulfilled the Law, this
passage is not teaching that, but rather that He terminated
the Law and provided a new and living way to God. 104
One would think from this that the passage had said: “Christ
is the end of the law,” period! Is not that exactly the
meaning given to it by these writers? But it does not say
that. He is the end of the law for a particular purpose for
particular persons. The passage says nothing about the law
being dead for all mankind. That idea is imported into the
passages. Now, this is so evidently the case that it warrants
saying that these writers are so dominated in their thinking by
101. Millennialism: The Two Major Views, Chicago: Moody, p.214, 1980.
102. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Tustin: Ariel
Ministries, p. 643, 1992. Interestingly, the Dallas Theological Seminary staff
commentary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Wheaton: Victor Books,
p. 480, 1983 says of telos, “It means that Christ is the designed end
(termination) or Purpose-Goal of the law (cf. Gal. 3:24), the Object to which
the law pointed.”
103. In R. B. Zuck, Vital New Testament Issues, Grand Rapids: Kregel, p.
79, 1996, repeated from Bibliotheca Sacra, “The End of the Law,” p. 239,
July 1967.
104. Basic Theology, Wheaton: Victor Books, p. 303, 1986.
the notion that the law is dead that they impose it upon a text
which actually expressly limits this to those who believe.
And if they are not able to see this, then what can we expect
them to say about the other passages they use?
JND has some good comments on this passage:
But there is another portion of scripture which is relied on
to put Christians under the law, I mean the sermon on the
mount, and in particular Matthew 5:17; but I apprehend the
Lord’s words are wholly misapprehended here. I do not
believe the law or the law’s authority is destroyed. I believe
those who have sinned under it will be judged by it. I
believe it will be written in the heart of Judah and Israel
hereafter under the new covenant, the substance of which
we have in spirit though not in the letter. It will never pass
till it be fulfilled. But Christ is the end of it -- the telos, the
completion and end of it -- for every one that believes. We
are not under it, because we are dead and risen in Him, and
the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives -applies to man in flesh; and we are not in flesh, but in the
Spirit in Christ risen: “If ye be dead with Christ . . . why
as though living [alive] in the world,” &c., says the apostle.
In flesh a man must be under law (which is indeed death and
the curse, because the flesh is sinful) or lawless, which is
surely no better; but in Christ he is neither. He is led by the
Spirit in the obedience of Christ. 105
2 Corinthians 3
L. S. Chafer wrote:
In the midst of the strongest possible contrasts between the
reign of the teachings of the law and the teachings of grace,
it is declared that these commandments were “done away”
and “abolished.” IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED THAT
the old was abolished to make place for the new, which far
excels in glory. The passing of the law is not, therefore, a
loss . . . (ST4:242).
To this let us add from Roy L. Aldrich:
Three times in 2 Corinthians 3:6-13 it is declared that the
Mosaic System is done away or abolished (vv. 7, 11, 13).
The participle used in each of these three verses is from the
verb katargeo, which means to abrogate, to cancel, to bring
to an end. No stronger term could be found to describe the
abolition of the law. It is the very word used to describe the
destruction of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. 106
˜ Notice that in the second quotation, the writer equates the
Mosaic System and the law. That is an equation they all
make. I agree that the “Mosaic System” is abolished.
These writers refuse to accept that the probation of the
first man is concluded and that the verdict based upon the
conclusion of the testing has been rendered in the Word.
Next, they confuse the Mosaic System, which utilized the
law in that probation, with the law itself. Part of the
106. “Has the Mosaic Law Been Abolished?” Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1959,
p. 328.
135
Mosaic System is the testing of the first man. The testing
is concluded. The Mosaic System is concluded, but that
leaves the law. The testing is over, the Mosaic System
is necessarily ended, the Mosaic System’s use of the law
in that testing is ended -- but it does not follow that the
law, which is God’s requirement for man in the flesh, is
gone.
a) The phenomenon that we have been observing in regard
to this issue about the law being dead, or gone, or in
abeyance, is that what Scripture states, concerning the
law, to be true for those as in Christ, is stated by these
writers to be true for all mankind -- i.e., they affirm that
the law is gone entirely. Let us read 2 Cor. 3:14:
But their thoughts have been darkened, for unto this
day the same veil remains in reading the old covenant,
unremoved, which in Christ is annulled. But unto this
day, when Moses is read, the veil lies on their heart.
But when it shall turn to [the] Lord, the veil is taken
away (2 Cor. 3:14).
Note that the veil is there “unto this day.” Thus the Jews are
recognized 107 and the veil lies on their hearts. So the veil
subsists while the church is being gathered and that veil will
subsist until -- when? -- when “it” 108 (Israel’s heart) turns to
the Lord in the future (cp. Rom. 11:26). So this veil was not
removed or annulled as a result of Christ’s death. It will be
taken away when Israel’s heart turns to the Lord (Rom. 11:7,
8, 25, 26). It is annulled in Christ, of course. Now note
that Roy L. Aldrich carefully pointed out that
“Three times in 2 Corinthians 3:6-13 it is declared that the
Mosaic System is done away or abolished (vv. 7, 11, 13).”
Yes, it is the Mosaic System that is done away, and three
times the word is used. So it is true that the old covenant is
abolished but our context is dealing with these matters from
the perspective of in Christ. And this is just the issue with
almost all these passages that supposedly prove that the law
is gone. It is gone in Christ, as is the veil. What authority
from this passage did LSC have to state:
it is declared that these commandments were “done away”
and “abolished.”
-- as if the words in Christ were not in the context. Leave
the words in Christ out of the context and you might have
had a show of reason for LCS assertion. Why did the Spirit
say in Christ? The ignoring of this qualifier shows LCS has
read his system into the text. JND’s translation has a helpful
footnote here:
‘That annulled,’ or ‘done away,’ may appear a little harsh,
107. “Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the
assembly of God” (1 Cor. 10:32).
108. He says that “it” refers to “an individual Jew receiving Christ,” Grace,
Grand Rapids: Kregel, p. 166, 1995 reprint. Though that is not what “it”
refers to, his comment means that the Jew is in a particular position
recognized by God now.
136
but the apostle uses it as a formula for the old covenant
done away in Christ. If this be borne in mind, the sense
will be clearer by the use of it. It contrasts ‘that annulled’
with ‘that which abides:’ so vers. 13 and 14.
Distinguish between the old covenant which used the law in
the probation of the first man, and the law itself. The
probation ended in the cross, the testing was completed, the
Mosaic System set aside, but that left the law itself.
Elsewhere JND wrote:
It is a great mistake to apply the Sermon on the Mount in its
positive statements to the law of the Ten Commandments,
as if it was a spiritualizing of them. The Law, as a system,
is spoken of, taken up in Matt. 5:17, 18, along with the
Prophets. Prophecies, ceremonies, and all that is in the
Law, were not set aside, or annulled, but fulfilled, the body
was of Christ, and no doubt the Lord fulfilled its behests
and precepts. It was to be kept till all was fulfilled. For
faith, it was fulfilled in Christ, and, as to practical
righteousness, is fulfilled in the Christian; Rom. 8.
˜ The intercalated age of grace idea requires the
reinstatement of the Mosaic System after the rapture of
the church. Hence the reference to the abolition of the
Antichrist is strange. No one thinks that after some time
he will be reinstated. Why think that the Mosaic System
will be reinstated any more than the Antichrist? – it
appears that the intercalation requires it.
Let us turn now to some of JND’s comments on 2 Cor. 3.
Then we have another contrast: death and condemnation
characterized the law in contrast with the gospel, which is
the ministration of righteousness and of the Spirit. It is the
presence of the Holy Ghost, righteousness being established.
The law claimed righteousness and could not get it; now, I
have righteousness made out for me, and established. A
righteousness being established, the Holy Ghost can come
and minister righteousness. In Galatians it is characterized
by the Spirit: “He that ministereth to you the Spirit,” and so
on. Indeed the whole blessing now is stamped with the
presence of the Holy Ghost. It is what characterizes the thing
-- the ministration of the gospel. It is the presence of the
Holy Ghost, and divine righteousness, instead of
condemnation and death. The law required righteousness
and no lust. This must be death to a man; it is so in his
natural condition. “When the law came, sin revived and I
died.” The old covenant was confined to the law. Only the
second time it was under half grace. Moses says, “Blot me
out.” “No,” God says, ‘I shall not: everybody shall answer
for himself.’ That is the law in principle; yet grace is
introduced. God tells Moses to lead the people, but His angel
shall go first. The contrast here is, if that which is done
away took place in glory, much more that which remains is
glorious.
Verse 13 is a very important one, because his
argument runs from that to the word “veil.” It is “that the
children of Israel should not look”; for “could” is not right
either; it is about half-way between. The use of the Greek
word differs: but here in v. 13 it is not “so that they could
not,” nor “that they could not,” but “so that they should
not,” as nearly as one can say it. In the words “look to the
end,” the apostle took the law as so many commandments
about sheep and bullocks, without ever looking beyond.
Christ is really the end of it all. Moses put a veil over his
face, because they could not bear to look at his face. There
is no veil now; but they were afraid of the glory. The law
being a ministration of death and condemnation, they could
not look at that. If you connect the least glimpse of the glory
of God with the law, then a man cannot look at it; just as
they had before said to Moses when God spoke out of the
fire, “You go and speak to God for us, lest we die.” The
apostle takes the law absolutely here as law -- death and
condemnation; but the way in which it worked in Israel then
was that it hindered their looking to the end of that which
was abolished. So Moses put on the veil in order that they
might not see the glory itself. That was before he went in to
the Lord. The veil was not put on in order to hinder, but it
was put on to the hindrance of their looking. “It came to
pass when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two
tables of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down
from the mount that Moses wist not that the skin of his face
shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all
the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face
shone, and they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses
called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the
congregation returned unto him, and Moses talked with
them. And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh and
he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken
with him in Mount Sinai. And till Moses had done speaking
with them, he put a veil on his face.”
The reason they were afraid to look at Moses was
because the glory was there. They could not look to the
end; they did not know when they offered a sacrifice that
this was typical of Christ. The “end” is clearly God’s
purpose in it, and this was what they could not look to. It
was a glory which came requiring righteousness, and this too
they could not meet. In Christ Himself you have the
explanation of all these images of the law. The veil is now
done away, but it is on their (Israel’s) hearts still. When
Moses was turned to the Lord, the veil was taken off, and so
it shall be with their hearts when they are turned to the Lord.
“It shall turn” (v. 16) refers to Israel’s heart when this is
turned to the Lord. There was no glory the first time on
Moses’ face because he had not been in such close
intercourse with God. The whole thing is a beautiful picture
of grace and law, for Moses was under grace. God says to
him, “Thou hast found grace in my sight.”109
Now we have the gospel of the glory, for that glory is not
veiled and it is the Christian’s privilege to behold that glory
(2 Cor. 3:18; 4:6).
Passages in Galatians
GALATIANS 3:19-26
Why then the law? It was added for the sake of
transgressions, until the seed came to whom the promise
was made . . . But the Scripture has shut up all things under
sin, that the promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus
Christ, should be given to those that believe. But before
faith came, we were guarded under law, shut up to faith
[which was] about to be revealed. So that the law has been
our tutor up to Christ, that we might be justified on the
principle of faith. But, faith having come, we are no longer
under a tutor; for we are all God’s sons by faith in Christ
Jesus (Gal. 3:19-26).
In one place, after quoting these Scriptures, LSC remarked:
Comment is unnecessary concerning this unconditional
declaration relative to the passing of the Mosaic System
(ST4:420).
However, we can find a comment:
The distinction between Jew and Gentile is broken down
and all are “under sin.” (ST4:165).
The Distinction Between Jew and Gentile Does Continue
Before God. And so this last sentence of LSC is 50% false.
What is true is that all are under sin. It is false to say that the
distinction between Jew and Gentile is therefore broken
down. In Christ this is true; outside of Christ it is false. The
Jew is recognized now as having the veil on him when he
reads the old covenant (2 Cor. 3:14-16) and we see that it
will continue that way until the heart of Israel is turned to the
Lord in the future. There is no thought in Scripture that that
veil on the heart of the Jew is now gone and that it will be
reinstated upon their hearts after the church is removed. 1
Cor. 10:32 recognizes three classes in the world: “. . . Jews,
or Greeks, or the assembly of God.” Moreover, Rom. 11
recognizes the on-going distinction between Jew and Gentile.
Israel is now under a judicial blinding (Rom. 11:7, 8), except
for the election of grace. Indeed, it is one of the mysteries
“that blindness in part is happened to Israel,” and for how
long? -- until the fulness of the nations arrives (Rom. 11:25).
The truth is, then, that God has concluded all (Jew and
Gentile) under sin, but continues to recognize the distinction
between Jew and Gentile. In Christ, of course, there is
neither Jew or Gentile. No, the cross did not remove the law,
and it may be used if a man knows how to use it lawfully (1
Tim. 1:9-12).
137
law was given. The law made sin take the form of
transgressions, to bring it into plain view, “until the seed
came to whom the promises were made.” What was the tutor
teaching? The lesson was the trial of the first man in the
persons of the favored nation. The law was the appointed
tutor to teach that “until.” The lesson of the trial of the first
man is terminated -- that tutoring function, which involves
the probation of the first man, is ended, but that in no wise
implies that the law is ended. But the word “until” is utilized
to say that at that point the law went out of existence.
However, the word “until” blocks the reinstatement of the
Mosaic System.
1. Why, then, would the Mosaic System be reinstated after
the rapture of the saints? How is the “until” to be undone
after the rapture? It should have said something like “for
the time being until the tutor is reinstated.” It is stunning
to think persons who call themselves “dispensationalists”
believe what amounts to a reinstatement of the “tutor”;
i.e., in their view, the reinstatement of the Mosaic
System!
We read “until the seed came.” That concluded
the Mosaic System. Is the seed going to do the
opposite of “came,” so as to undo what His coming
did -- so that the Mosaic System can be reinstated?
2. LSC will not have it that the testing of the first man is
completed; i.e., that man is no longer under probation.
That is what the death of Christ ended; and therefore the
Mosaic System under which man was being tested had to
end. But the system, under which man had a standing in
the flesh before God, ended when the standing of the first
man ended. Christ’s death left the law where it was as the
rule of right for man in the flesh, though God is no
longer regarding man in the flesh as under probation.
The test has been concluded and the verdict rendered.
Mosaic System is not the real issue. LSC has made the
Mosaic System and the law to be the same thing, so that by
showing that the Mosaic System is gone, then the law is also.
And what underlies these things is that he has the erroneous
idea that man is now being tested by grace. LSC thinks it so
clear that the law is dead that no comment on this passage is
necessary. What he is doing once again is using a passage
which speaks of those who are “sons,” who are “in Christ
Jesus” (Gal. 3:26, 14) to show that the law is gone. A
comment that seems necessary is that the chapter is about the
blessing of those in Christ, just as we saw in 2 Cor. 3:7-16
and LSC wants to get out of the passage that the law is dead.
There is not a word about the law having passed away.
The giving of the law “for the sake of
transgressions” was part of the testing of the first
man in the persons of the favored Jews. The testing
terminated in Christ’s rejection at the cross. Thus in
the ways of God, His use of the law as part of a
system for this purpose, i.e., the testing of the first
man, was until the Seed was here and was rejected on
the cross. That leaves the law itself, which had been
God’s instrument for testing the first man while under
that system, not now the instrument of testing but,
just where it was as the rule for man in the flesh, the
blinded nation not having learned from that testing -but pretending to keep it. So the Mosaic Covenant
was temporary, is not in force now, but that leaves
the law here. So to speak of the Mosaic System as
being set aside does not mean that the law also is set
aside.
“Our Tutor Up to Christ.” Sin was in the world before the
The Coming of Faith. The coming of faith does not mean
Comments Are Certainly Necessary. The passing of the
138
that no one had faith in OT times. Its coming refers faith as
the revealed and acknowledged way to blessing, involving
faith in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus. When Paul
wrote, “But before faith came, we were guarded under law,
shut up to faith [which was] about to be revealed,” he means
by “we,” we Jews, for Gentiles were never under the law of
Moses. And when under the law, the Jews were “shut up to
faith.” At that time faith was not God’s revealed and
acknowledged way and principle of blessing (though, of
course, OT saints had faith -- believed what God had said).
The testing of the first man was not completed and the Jews
“were guarded under law.” But when that testing was
completed, God revealed a new thing, namely, “that the
promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus Christ, should be
given to those that believe.” 110
The Law Our Tutor Up to Christ. “Our” means the Jews, for
Gentiles never were under the law of Moses. The law was
not a tutor to bring persons to Christ; it was a tutor up to that
time -- specifically up to His rejection on the cross. This
passage is another indicator that the testing of the first man
ended at the cross. Because the law was a tutor up to that
point does not mean that thereafter the law was gone. No,
but rather that its use as an instrument of God in the testing
of the first man was concluded, and that man is not now
under testing. The Jew then was no longer “shut up to faith,”
for God was no longer doing that, though a Jew may keep
himself in such a condition, refusing to be “justified on the
principle of faith.” So that tutoring use of the law, as part of
God’s having tested man, came to an end, but it does not
follow that the law itself is gone. If the Mosaic System is
reinstated, the “tutor” will be reinstated.
LSC Continues the Testing of Man. The notion that man is
now being tested by grace during an age of grace entails
reading into these passages that speak of what is true in
Christ, the notion that the law is gone. It is required by the
false system and lo! there it is in these Scriptures. It is but
the exigency of the system of intercalating a “church age”
into the Mosaic age that fosters this doctrine about the law
being dead, and therefore it has to be found somewhere -but it is really nowhere. There is no “heavenly age”
(heavenly dispensation) among the earthly ages during which
man is being tested by grace. This ongoing testing notion is
another false component of this system that requires that the
law be dead so as to be replaced by the testing by grace. It is
all a denial that the first man no longer has a status before
God and is no longer under probation. In effect, this system
means that the first man still has a status before God.
A Summary Statement from JND is Helpful Here.
. . . all that is of the flesh is finally and hopelessly
110. There is much more to Christian position and blessing than in this
statement, but Paul is dealing with the state of the Galatians to get them away
from listening to law-teachers and ground them again in the basics of grace.
condemned. Christ, by dying, has closed all possible
connection between God and man in the flesh. Man in the
flesh has rejected Christ, is condemned, and judgment only
remains for him. The law was not given to all men. It was
the rule of right for man in the flesh, but given when man
was a sinner, whom God knew to be wholly and hopelessly
lost, to the Jewish people, to bring out the great truth of
man’s condition, if righteousness was claimed from him.
Sin, death, judgment, were already man’s portion, and
nothing else. He was lost; he proves it by rejecting Christ.
But the law came in to raise the question of righteousness.
Christ was perfect here as everywhere, but alone in it. Man
in flesh, unless redemption came in, was as alienated from
God as ever. But redemption came in by death, and the
believer has died with Christ, does not in God’s sight exist
in the life in which he was in the flesh (and if he were under
law, it was in flesh), and he has died away from under it to
have his place and portion through redemption in Christ
risen, having died as to the life in which he was under the
law. He is in Christ, and in Christ accepted according to
Christ’s own acceptance. The value which Christ has in the
sight of God, which is real and meritorious, is the value in
which he stands, but as dead and risen. The death of Christ
has put away his sin, and all the glorifying of God, in virtue
of which Christ as man is at God’s right hand in
righteousness (he stands in the value of Christ) is his
righteousness. He is not under law at all, but under grace.111
GALATIANS 5:18
. . . but if ye are led by the Spirit ye are not under law (Gal.
5:18).
LSC included this in a list of Scriptures that he claimed was
“decisive language” that showed “that the law as an ad
interim system did come to its end and a new divine economy
superseded it” (ST4:18). But, of course, he did not explain
this text’s “decisive language” that the law is gone. Really,
how could anyone suggest such a false meaning for this
passage? The truth is that his words are a mere assertion, and
it is clear that the passage shows that those led of the Spirit,
who are therefore in Christ, are not under the law.
Ephesians 2:15
. . . but now in Christ Jesus ye who were once afar off are
become nigh by the blood of the Christ. For he is our
peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the
middle wall of enclosure, having annulled the enmity in his
flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that he
might form the two in himself into one new man, making
peace; and might reconcile both in one body to God by the
cross, by it having slain the enmity (Eph. 2:13-16).
LSC refers to the Eph. 2:15 text in a number of places
(ST4:95, 108, 242; 3:112), but does not attempt to show
how it tells us that the law is gone. He wrote a book on
Ephesians, wherein he correctly wrote:
The removal of both the enmity and the partition between
Jew and Gentile is divinely accomplished through the
creation of “one new man;” not by renewing individual
men, but by forming one new Body -- the Church -- of
which Christ is the Head. Thus, in the Church (verse 16),
He reconciles both Jew and Gentile “unto God in one body
by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” . . . 112
Yes, in v. 13 we read “in Christ Jesus” and in v. 15 “in
himself.” There is not a word here that supports the notion
that the law is gone for all men. The passage is speaking of
what is true in Christ. But Arnold Fructenbaum, ignoring
this, plunges ahead with the false notion anyway:
If the Mosaic Law was still in effect, it would still be a wall
of partition to keep the Gentiles away; but the wall of
partition was broken down with the death of Christ. Since
the wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, that meant that
the Law of Moses was done away with. 113
And this is a good occasion to raise a matter that I do not
find addressed by LSC, et. al.
˜ If the death of Christ ended the law, i.e., if it was nailed
to the cross, and removed the partition for all men, then
what will un-nail the law from the cross and restore the
law and the partition after the rapture of the saints? May
we be directed to Scripture which says these things?
139
several facts to notice:
˜ The passage is not about all men, but about those
“quickened together with him” (v. 13); thus, the passage
is about those in Christ.
˜ He prejudices the reader’s understanding of the meaning
by rewording, so as to fit his notion, thus -- “the law
with its handwriting of ordinances.” Observe, then, that
the text says no such thing; rather, “having effaced the
handwriting in ordinances.”
Moreover, do not substitute the word “law” for “handwriting
in ordinances.” JND has a footnote to “handwriting”:
Handwriting, obligation to which a man is subject by his
signature.
And again:
The handwriting should be, “the obligation” -- the
obligation that existed in ordinances. 114
I will quote F. W. Grant here:
It is not the law itself of which he is speaking, but of our
obligation to it. This is what the “hand-writing” means, and
this is what is effaced for us, it being nailed to the cross.
The law is not dead, as we have seen in Romans, but we
have died to it. It is stated here in another way, but the same
thing in effect.115
Colossians 2:14
Hebrews 7:12, 18
And you, being dead in offences and in the uncircumcision
of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, having
forgiven us all the offences; having effaced the handwriting
in ordinances which [stood out] against us, which was
contrary to us, he has taken it out of the way, having nailed
it to the cross . . . (Col. 2:13:14).
LSC wrote:
Again, the believer has been delivered from the law by no
less an undertaking than the nailing of the law with its
handwriting of ordinances to the cross (ST4:109).
It seems to me to be bold to say that the law was nailed to the
cross and injurious to that very work on the cross to then
affirm that the law will be reinstated after the rapture of the
saints, as his system of ages (involving an “age of grace”
among the earthly ages wherein man is still being tested)
requires. The issue is:
˜ If the law was nailed to the cross so as to end it for all
men, what is it that un-nails it so as to apply it again after
the rapture of the saints?
Yes, it is true that he speaks here of the believer, but he
elsewhere included this passage as one of those that so
overwhelmingly shows that the law is gone for all. There are
112. The Ephesian Letter Doctrinally Considered, New York: Loizeaux,
p.88, 1944 [1935].
113. Op. Cit., p. 645.
WHAT WAS SET ASIDE?
For there is a setting aside of the commandment going
before for its weakness and unprofitableness, (for the law
perfected nothing,) and the introduction of a better hope by
which we draw nigh to God (Heb. 7:18, 19).
We have previously distinguished the setting aside of the
Mosaic System which regarded the first man as having a
standing before God, under the law, in the flesh, and the law
itself. The system under which the first man stood in
probation was set aside, but the law itself was not abrogated.
We shall have to consider it again here. Arnold Fructenbaum
wrote:
Hebrews 7:18 states that the Mosaic Law was
“disannulled.” Because it is no longer in effect, there is now
a new priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek. If the
Mosaic Law was still in effect, Jesus could not function as
a priest. 116
First, note that the word “commandment,” singular, is used
in Heb. 7:18. What is meant is the order of approach to God
under the Mosaic order.
Second, notice that JND translates Heb. 7:12, not “the
law” but “law.” W. Kelly wrote:
115. Numerical Bible, Acts-2 Cor., p. 369.
116. Op. cit., p. 645.
140
. . . not of “the law,” . . . but “of law.” There is a totally
different principle henceforth.
117
Heb. 7:12 does not say that there has been a change of the
law. It informs the reader that there has been a change in the
principle upon which God is dealing.118 The Mosaic System
is annulled, not the law. Concerning Heb. 7:18, W. Kelly
wrote:
Our chapter however draws a still larger deduction, not only
an incomparably higher priesthood, to which Aaron’s gives
place, but disannulling of a foregoing commandment as
weak and unprofitable; for, as is added parenthetically, the
law perfected nothing. Christ is not only perfect in Himself
but brings in perfection, and in every way. And this is what
is implied in Chap. 6:1 -- “let us go on to perfection.” It
really is Christianity in contradistinction from Judaism . . .
There is a doing away of a foregoing commandment, and an
introduction of a better hope, by which we draw near to
God: the legal state is annulled, and a better hope
supervenes now. It is Christianity, and by it we draw near
to God, instead of standing at a distance as being essentially
Jewish.119
Heb. 7 does not teach that the law is dead, or that it is nailed
to the cross. One who wishes to find it so, undoubtedly will.
But it really is not there. The forgoing commandment refers
to approach to God via the Aaronic priesthood and system of
worship while the first man had a standing in the flesh, in
contrast to the introduction of a better hope by which we
draw near to God. The priesthood is changed and the Mosaic
System is annulled, or set aside. The law is left where it was.
The point is, as said above, “There is a totally different
principle henceforth.”
J. N. Darby long ago pointed out that, not the law but,
the Mosaic System was set aside:
But, as thus given to man as an external system, it was
clearly (and that is admitted on all hands) set aside. There
was an annulling of the commandment going before, for the
weakness and unprofitableness thereof (for the law made
nothing perfect), and the bringing in of a better hope by the
which we draw nigh to God. God was not to be tempted by
putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither the
Jewish disciples nor their fathers had been able to bear. The
whole system, as a system, was declaredly and
unquestionably set aside, and Christianity, the faith, not
law, came in. After that faith came, that is, Christianity, the
117. Hebrews, in loco.
118. Charles C. Ryrie ignores the distinction between “the law” and “of
law.” Ignoring this fact is necessary to what he wrote concerning this text:
“Since Christ is the believers’ High Priest, there has to have been a change
in the Law, since He could not qualify as a priest under the Levitical
priesthood,” in R. B. Zuck, Vital New Testament Truths, Grand rapids:
Kregel, p. 83, 1996. Since he thinks that the law has to be dead for Christ to
be a priest, evidently He does not understand the true character of the
heavenly priesthood of Christ. No doubt that is connected with the idea of the
existence of a church age among the earthly ages. That idea negatively affects
understanding of the heavenly truth.
119. Ibid.
system of faith, we were no longer under the schoolmaster.
I make a difference as to the ten words, of which I will
speak. God spoke them out of the midst of the fire, and
added no more. They were laid up in the ark. All this made
a difference, but as terms of a covenant, they are clearly set
aside with the rest, supposing them for a moment written on
our hearts, and we the objects of the new covenant; if that
were so, still, as engraved in stones as legal conditions of
blessing in the old covenant, all is done away together.
What waxed old was ready to vanish away. The old
covenant we are not under, and surely the commandments
formed the basis of that.
But it will be said, every one admits that: but you
must distinguish between the principle of the old covenant
and the contents of that which constitutes its main terms,
though there may be other details. Precisely so . . .120
And in the same paper he affirmed that the law is not
abrogated:
I believe the law to be the perfect rule of life for man in the
flesh, but it supposes sin, and applies to sinful flesh, to man
in the flesh; and, being on the principle of requirement, and
rightly so (for it is a very important principle and maintains
God’s rights), it condemns me as to righteousness, and is no
help to me, but the contrary, as to sanctification. If then the
law be holy, just, and good in its contents, why not be
under it? why not maintain it? Because I am then in a
relationship with God which involves condemnation and the
power of sin. Law is law, not grace, and the strength of sin
is the law. Maintain the law as law and you destroy its
authority if it be not law to you; and if it be law to you, it
is the strength of sin, and sin will have dominion over you.
It must, as law, have external authority, God’s authority as
such. If you weaken that, you have destroyed it as a law.
And here I separate from both parties who have
discussed it. They both, in my judgment, really destroy its
authority, one unintentionally, the other declaring it is
abrogated, buried, and the like. The former are obliged to
yield a great deal, desiring to maintain its authority, because
they cannot help it; the latter destroy its authority and make
it to be abrogated. I do not abate one jot or one little. I do
not raise the question of Gentiles not being under it, though
historically true; because, if not, they are lawless, and I
admit the law to be a perfect rule for man in the flesh. I say
I am not on Gentile ground, though a Gentile; not a
–<@:@H 1,è (lawless in respect to God, but §<<@:@H
OD4FJ,è, I do not say under the law to Christ (that is an
utterly false translation), but duly subject to Christ. Yet I do
not say the authority of the law is weakened or done away,
but that I AM DEAD TO IT. The law has power over a
man as long as he lives -- and can have it no longer; and I
am no longer alive in the flesh.
I reject the altering, modifying, the law. I reject
christianizing in it; that is, weakening its legal character by
an admixture of grace that is neither law nor gospel. I
maintain its whole absolute authority. Those who have
120. “The Sabbath: or, Is the Law dead , or am I?” Collected Writings
10:281.
sinned under it will be judged by it. It will have its own
authority (that is, God’s) according to its own terms in the
day of judgment; but I am not under it but under grace, not
under the schoolmaster but a son, because faith is come, and
I have the Spirit of adoption. I am on another footing and in
another relationship with God; I am not in the flesh, not in
the place of a child of Adam at all, but delivered out of it by
redemption. I have died and risen again; I am in Christ.121
CHRIST’S PRIESTHOOD
The Melchisedec priesthood is an order of priesthood
different than the Aaronic order of priesthood; and the
Melchisedec priesthood of Christ
has been constituted not according to law of fleshly
commandment, but according to power of indissoluble life
(Heb. 7:16).
While the Melchisedec priesthood is not in operation now (it
is millennial) Hebrews shows that the Melchisedec priesthood
rests upon a totally different principle than law -- the power
of an indissoluble life. This is a priesthood with which the
law has nothing to do, and Christ’s present, heavenly activity
as High Priest partakes of that character -- the power of an
indissoluble life. This, therefore, is a priesthood on the other
side of death. Christ is outside the sphere of the law. And for
the Christian, one who is in Christ, the legal state is gone.
It is disannulled to the Christian by his being in Christ, not
by the law having ended. The setting aside of “the
commandment going before” (Heb. 7:18) is in the context of
the old approach to God having been set aside by the
introduction of a better hope whereby we draw nigh to God.
The establishment of the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ
necessarily means a different approach to God than found in
the law. Heb. 7 shows the superiority of the Melchisedec
priesthood to the Aaronic, and its superior basis (Heb. 7:16).
Then the statement (v. 17) of testimony to it, next that it
displaces the basis for the Aaronic priesthood (Heb. 7:18),
and then (Heb. 7:19) a better hope is connected with this
better approach. For all that, there is no indication that the
law itself is dead.
Now notice the erroneous idea stated above that if the law
was still in effect, our Lord could not be a priest. Does not
that statement mean that if the law still subsists now in the
earth, the Lord Jesus could not now be a priest in the power
of an indissoluble life, in heaven? Let us read Heb. 8:4, 5:
If then indeed he were upon earth, he would not even be a
priest, there being those who offer the gifts according to the
law, (who serve the representation and shadow of heavenly
things, according as Moses was oracularly told [when]
about to make the tabernacle . . .)
That is not to say that God regards Judaism as being
acceptable to Him as the present way of approach. It is not -and He was soon going to put an end to the temple through
121. Ibid., pp. 283, 284.
141
the Romans (in AD 70 -- cp. Matt. 22). My point is that the
law was still there, and not gone for all men as the system we
are reviewing requires. The reason our Lord could not be a
priest on earth is stated to be that there are priests (of the
Aaronic order) on earth who offer gifts according to the law
(Christ’s priesthood is in heaven). This is not to affirm that
God continued to recognize the Jewish system as valid. He
did not. Let us review again what was said in regard to
LSC’s statements regarding the reinstatement of the Mosaic
System after the rapture.
AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
Can those who hold to an intercalated age of grace have had
any correct idea at all about the subject of the probation of
the first man, a central teaching of the recovered truth last
century relating to dispensational truth -- and specifically the
testing of the first man under the Mosaic Covenant and the
law? So Judaism will be reinstated according to this system
that says that the law is dead now and nailed to the cross.
Somehow the law will get off the cross to which it was
allegedly nailed; and not only that, but Judaism itself will be
reinstated -- approved of God! -- so as to be there after the
rapture. The fact that the Jews will set up a Judaistic system
then, and that the remnant will be under the law, in their
consciences, does not prove the reinstatement of Judaism, as
such.
The Jewish system utilized the law in the testing of the
first man during the probationary times. The Mosaic
Covenant recognized a standing in the flesh before God.
When the Judaistic system became no longer recognized by
God as a consequence of the cross, that means that the
standing of the first man, a standing in the flesh, was ended.
Because that was ended, it does not automatically follow that
the law itself, as the law, was ended. The probation was
ended; the standing in the flesh was ended; the Mosaic
System was ended as being acceptable to God; but the law
itself did not die, nor was it nailed to the cross. This
distinction is important.
There is a distinction, then, between the first man being
tested under the Mosaic Covenant coming to an end at the
cross and the status of the law subsequently. The Jewish
system was God’s relationship with man under the law in his
Adamic standing. The testing involved the obedience of the
first man in his Adamic nature. That standing in the flesh
before God was finished at the cross. God’s relationship with
man under the law in Adamic standing was then terminated.
The probation was completed. That leaves the law where it
was. Moreover, the Mosaic age was left where it was. There
has been no change in the age, while God meanwhile forms
a heavenly people (1 Cor. 15:48). And there will be no
change in the age until “the age to come” (the millennium)
begins. Nor is there any testing now, neither by grace, nor
under the law; nor will there be the reinstatement of what
was God’s relationship with man in Adamic standing under
142
the law. But, no doubt unwittingly, that reinstatement of the
probation of the first man in his standing before God, in the
flesh, under the law, is just what this false system really
amounts to. It means the reinstatement of the Mosaic
Covenant and the reinstatement of the first man in Adamic
standing under the law -- though in reality, since the false
system has man under test now, the first man has not lost that
standing, even though the Second Man, the man of purpose,
has been established before God. It ought to be clear that
what we are reviewing is not dispensational truth but a false
age-ism scheme.
Second: God can, and does, use the law to teach individual
persons something. In 1 Tim. 1:8 we read:
An Objection to
the Law not Being Dead Now
Third: the false notion of the intercalation of a “church age”
means the reinstatement of the law after the church is
removed. What ended the law? The cross, it is said. The law
was nailed to the cross. (Precisely what un-nails it?)
It may be claimed that if the law is not dead now, then men
are still under it, and under it during the age of grace.
First: we saw that the responsible man, i.e., the first man,
has had his standing in responsibility, as under probation, as
under trial, ended in the cross. We noted that this does not
mean that natural men are no longer connected with the first
man. They are; but the first man’s history, morally speaking,
is closed. God is done with him as to probation, except that
having declared the conclusion from that probation, that men
are TOTALLY LOST, He saves, but that is another matter.
the sense of having wholly failed under it, when proved in
every possible way, yet as to moral dealing with each
individual, the responsibility is there to the full; and as an
individual under moral dealing, a man has to go through the
history of the process of responsibility and its failure; but he
goes through it to bring out this, that he is lost already. He
has to prove the truth of God’s verdict that in man there is
no good thing; and so the result of the principle of
responsibility is for him to find out that he is lost, that the
responsibility is over; not as if it was not true, but because
he is lost and ruined, as the man who has lost all his money
by foolish ways. It is important to keep up responsibility,
but the individual is brought to the consciousness that on
that ground it is all up with him. Man is lost. We have spent
every farthing, and have only debts; these we have if that is
any good. It is all over with the first man, and no mending
of him will do: he is lost and ruined; but Christ came to
save the lost.
Now the Second Man is set up. It is not a mending of
the first man, but the substitution of the Second. There is no
practically changed if we come to Christ), but the sins of the
first Adam are all cleared away; and, secondly, the tree
itself is cut down by the roots for faith. In the cross we see
the responsibility met completely; Christ has met all the
failure . . . 122
Now we know that the law [is] good if anyone use it
lawfully
We see it being used in Rom. 7 upon one who has “the
inward man” (Rom. 7:22). The fact that the law is not dead
does not mean that the probation of the first man, when
under the law, must therefore now be continuing. Teaching
individuals, as such, is not the continuance of the trial of the
first man. The law may be used of God to teach an individual
what the first man failed to learn when under probation, i.e.,
when under testing.
And that puts the Jews in Daniel’s 70th week back under
the law in the pre-cross sense. Before the cross, the first man
was being tested by the law. LSC puts the Jews in that
position again. If I say that the Jewish remnant will be under
the law in their consciences, that is not at all the same thing
as the reinstatement of the law in LSC’s system.
Fourth: What LSC’s system means, in effect, is that Judaism
will be reinstatement by God and recognized by Him as
before the cross. It will then have validity before God. It is
worth repeating what JND wrote regarding Judaism:
It is asked, “What is that which subsisted de facto, not by
divine authority, not yet actually set aside, which Christians
were called to come out of?” (Page 10.) It was Judaism at
Jerusalem. It did subsist de facto till the destruction of
Jerusalem; had no real divine authority after the cross, but
was left by the patience of God, not yet set aside; and
Christians, that is, Jewish Christians, had remained in it by
thousands, nay, wanted to subject Gentile Christians to it,
though God did not allow that; and the Jewish Christians
were now called to come out of it. A great many of the
priests even, it is said, were obedient to the faith. This was
now to close. 123
{Heb. 8:4}. For if He were on earth He should not be a
Priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according
to the law. Therefore, at the very time when the heavenly
priesthood was being unfolded to the Hebrews, there existed
on earth another priesthood, which though no longer
recognized, was yet in operation. This was a time of
transition between the two dispensations. We gather from
this that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written before the
fall of Jerusalem. For what object? First, to show the
Hebrews their heavenly privileges; but also to bid them go
forth without the camp. 124
The Mosaic age continues to this very hour. The law
continues to this hour. Judaism was overthrown when God
124. Collected Writings 28:20; see also 27:379, note.
sent his forces and destroyed those murders and burned their
city (Matt. 22:7 -- AD 70). In the future, the Jews will set
up, in the land, a form of Judaism. What will befall them
will be worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70:
. . . for then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been
from [the] beginning of [the] world until now, nor ever shall
be; and if those days had not been cut short, no flesh had
been saved; but on account of the elect those days shall be
cut short (Matt. 21, 22).
Fifth: keep in mind that this system says the law, which he
equates with the Mosaic System, is reinstated by God. The
LSC system means, in effect, that there will be the
reinstatement of a God-recognized Aaronic order of
priesthood. In the millennium, the Lord Jesus will be a priest
upon His throne (Zech. 6:13). This is what the Melchisedec
priesthood points to. The Melchisedec priesthood of Christ
is founded on the finished work. The millennial sacrifices
take their character from being offered under the High
Priesthood of the Melchisedec order. Looking back to the
cross, looking back to the finished work, the sacrifices are
memorial in character. The sons of Zadok, offspring of the
faithful warrior priest, Phinehas, shall lead in the priesthood
(Ezek. 40-48). And though they are sons of Aaron, they do
not function under the Aaronic order. They are under the
order of the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ. Meanwhile,
now, He functions in an Aaronic function, spiritually, though
not in the Aaronic order. But this instructive subject is too
large to develop here.
The truth is that there is no valid priesthood since the
cross other than that of our Lord and what is under Him.
Now, all believers are priests. And He is declared priest
forever, after the order of Melchisedec. God only does, and
will in the future, recognize this order of priesthood. Who,
in the future, does LSC suppose will be the High Priest in
Israel, of the Aaronic order, functioning according to that
order, that God will recognize under the reinstated Mosaic
System?
Sixth: the sacrifices under the Mosaic System pointed
forward to the work of Christ. Those sacrifices were a
standing witness to the fact that the once-for-all work was not
yet done. What will be the meaning of the sacrifices during
the 70th week of Daniel? Keep in mind that the notion is that
the Mosaic System will be reinstated at the point where it
was rejected by God!
143
We have not found any testimony to this effect, much less
finding “extended testimony.” We saw that he consistently
used passages that show that the law is gone for those in
Christ as if those passages said that the law is gone outside
of Christ. Not only is this an unacceptable process, we have
seen that Scripture indicates that the law is still here. But not
only have we not found Scripture to teach that the law is
gone, LSC has not told us how the law, alleged to be nailed
to the cross, is going to be uncrucified, un-nailed, so as to be
in effect again after the rapture of the saints. To say that the
law was nailed to the cross so as to be gone for all men; to
say that the cross removed the middle wall of partition for all
men, and then to affirm that the law will be reinstated after
the rapture of the saints; to say that the middle wall of
partition done away as regards all men, by the cross, will be
erected again after the rapture of the saints; to hold a system
which, in effect, reinstates a valid Aaronic priesthood
functioning as before the cross; offering sacrifices that look
forward to the work of Christ; is, in my judgment, to say the
least, deplorable. The idea appears to be part of a humanly
devised system imposed on Scripture, namely, the creation
of a “church age” wherein the first man is still under testing.
It is a false Age-ism system calling itself dispensational truth
– whereas it undermines dispensational truth.
“This age” is still the same Mosaic age. There is no
earthly “age of grace” among the earthly ages. The (Mosaic)
age goes on; the world goes on; and God is doing a heavenly
work now in connection with the Second Man, the first
having been set aside. Christianity is not an earthly age
among the earthly ages. It is not a “heavenly age” among the
earthly ages. The ages spoken of in Scripture that have to do
with time are all earthly ages. The idea of a “heavenly age”
among them is an expedient of the dispensational Age-ism
system. The law is still here and it will still remain after the
rapture of the saints.125 It need not somehow come down off
the cross to be reinstated. It never was abrogated. We do not
need to solve how the law allegedly nailed to the cross is
going to be un-nailed, for the law was never nailed to the
cross.
In addition, during the tribulation period God will form
a godly remnant of the Jews, under the law in their
consciences, knowing it is broken, yet looking for Messiah’s
deliverance and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel under
the new covenant. But that is another subject.
Conclusion
We have looked at the passages brought forward by LSC to
warrant his assertion that presently:
The complete passing, through the death of Christ, of the
reign of the Mosaic Law, even for Israel, is the extended
testimony of Scripture (ST4:240).
125. When Christ introduces the “age to come,” i.e., the millennium, the law
will be written in the hearts of Israel under the new covenant.
144
3: The Two Parentheses
Acts: The History of the Spirit’s Work in
Testimony to the Resurrection and Glorification of Christ
Parts 1 and 2
Acts 1
Preparation for
the Spirit’s Coming
Acts 2-12
Preparation for the Unfolding of
the Truth of the Mystery
PETER PROMINENT
Acts 1: Ascension
DISCIPLES WAITING
Acts 1 shows the spiritual exercises of the disciples prior to the
coming of the Spirit. These exercises were based on the promise
of the Spirit’s coming, the prophecies of the coming kingdom in
power, and the promise of
Christ’s return -- but not on a
vision of Christ actually in the
glory.
Christ’s entrance into glory
was hidden from their view by
the cloud. Their mission was not
the unfolding of the heavenly
sphere and our union with
Christ there as members of His
body. This was reserved for
Paul. The full complement of
the twelve apostles was established according to an O. T.
means. All was now ready for the
Spirit’s coming at the opening of
the heavenly parenthesis.
The ministry of the twelve had
especially in view testimony to
the death, resurrection and exaltation of Christ.
Acts 2-7: A Year of Grace
Exposes the Jews’ Rejection of
the Spirit’s Testimony
CHURCH COMPOSED OF SAVED JEWS
Christ baptized (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5) those who
had believed (John 7:39), in the power of one
Spirit, into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) consequent
upon Christ’s exaltation (John 7:39; Acts 2:32,
33). The Lord added to the church daily those who
were to be saved (Acts 2:47). While the Israel of
God (Gal. 6:16), i.e., the Jewish election of grace
(Rom. 11:5), were exclusively being called during
this brief period, the Spirit’s testimony to Christ’s
resurrection and glorification was presented to
Israel for their rejection before the gospel proceeded to Samaria and beyond. This testimony
occupied the year of grace (Luke 13:6-9). The
Spirit’s testimony through Stephen closed this
year, with Stephen giving his life as the first Christian martyr. He had traced their history of always
resisting the Spirit (Acts 7). Stephen answers to
the embassy in the parable in Luke 19:11ff. While
the cross ended the testing standing of the first
man, Christ, the Second Man, had taken a place in
glory, and it was needful to show that the first man
(in the character of the favored Jew) would not
have it so, before the Spirit gathered in Gentiles.
Saul, soon to become an apostle for this purpose, is
here seen as a persecutor. During this year of
exposure of the fall of Israel, the apostles ministered the Word in the power of the Spirit, accompanied by signs (Acts 2-4). His presence as
dwelling in the church detected deceit (Acts 5) to
keep the saints clean, and sustained unity and
order in the face of internal difficulty (Acts 6).
This testimony was not really a continuation of
the previous kingdom proclamation, for there was
no preaching that the kingdom was at hand. The
Spirit called upon them to repent for the slaying of
Christ and then the Lord would return and set up
the kingdom. (And eventually, connected with
their repentance this will happen). God thus
cleared the ground for the unfolding of the heavenly things; for He knew that they would not
repent, yea, that they could not unless He acted
sovereignly to move them to do so. Acts 2-7 shows
that a blinding, in part, came upon them (Rom.
11:7-10: 1 Thess. 2:15-17).
Acts 8-12: A Transition Period in
Preparation for Paul’s Mission
GENTILES ADDED TO THE CHURCH
After the year of exposure of the fall of Israel, the testimony of the Spirit “branches out into the free action of
the Spirit of God, independent of, but not separated
from, the twelve and Jerusalem as the center” (J. N.
Darby). Samaritans were brought into blessing, as well
as an Ethiopian proselyte (a son of Ham), etc. (Acts 8), a
token of the Spirit’s sovereignty in grace. A special vessel of grace (1 Tim. 1:13-16) was formed for future work
in connection with seeing the Lord in glory, Who said,
“why persecutest thou me?” This view of the Lord gave
character to the apostleship and ministry of Paul, who
unfolded the heavenly glory and our union with the
Head in heaven. Thus Paul immediately preached
Christ as the Son of God (Acts 9), the character in which
He is the foundation of the church (Matt. 16:16-18).
Formally, however, he did not enter upon his special mission until the time of Acts 13.
Next, through Peter’s continued ministry, Eneas and
Dorcas experience the Spirit’s power (Acts 9) away from
Jerusalem. Then the Spirit added Gentiles to the church
(Acts 10 &11 ) with the lesson that God declared the
Gentiles suited to hear the gospel and believe. The free
action of the Spirit brought in more Gentiles (Acts 11:20,
21), though in sending Barnabas from Jerusalem the
connection with that center was kept up. The Spirit’s
action was also manifested in prophecy (Acts 11:27-30).
In Acts 12 we see the ministry of angels for the heirs
of salvation (Heb. 1:14). As Paul’s conversion reminds
us of the future conversion of Israel, in answer to the
Lord’s prayer, “Father forgive them for they know not
what they do,” so Peter’s deliverance reminds us of that
future deliverance of the Jewish remnant.
Acts 8 - 12 is transitional and preparatory for a new
mission about to begin from the Gentile assembly at
Antioch -- without dependence on Jerusalem or the 12
apostles for its validity.
Acts: The History of the Spirit’s Work in
Testimony to the Resurrection and Glorification of Christ
Part 3
Acts 13-28
The Truth of the Mystery Unfolded
PAUL PROMINENT
Acts 13-20: The
Mystery Proclaimed
Acts 20-28: Prisoner of
the Lord for the Gentiles
CHURCH PREDOMINANTLY GENTILE
Acts 13 introduces the Spirit’s testimony in Paul’s mission,
beginning formally at Antioch, based on the fact that the
church, which is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23), was
formed by the baptism in the power of the Spirit (1 Cor.
12:13) at Pentecost, once for all. All added to the body since
that baptism in the Spirit receive the same “Holy Spirit of
promise” (Eph. 1:13; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; John 14:16, 26;
16:7). Such are “in Christ” and so there were those “who
also were in Christ before me,” said Paul (Rom. 16:7).
Paul’s mission included the unfolding of the truth of the
mystery of Christ and the church, as well as the gospel of the
glory. As the Jews refused the Spirit’s testimony to Christ in
glory, so they refused the Spirit’s testimony of grace to the
Gentiles.
“The Holy Ghost now calls, through prophets, for the
separation of Barnabas and Saul for the work to which he
had called them, and they are sent forth by the Holy Ghost.
It is a new kind of apostle. The first thing we find is a figure
of the total blinding of the Jews who resist the Holy Ghost,
and the eyes of Gentiles opened to believe. Notwithstanding
this, Paul (for he is now called Paul) according to the Lord’s
mind goes always first to the Jews, and afterwards to the
Greeks. John Mark leaves them. After having preached
round, they choose elders for the churches, of whom we here
read first among Gentiles. He then returns to Antioch, and
there we find what the laying on of hands had been: that is,
they had been recommended to the grace of God for the
work which they had now fulfilled. And there they abode
long time with the disciples.
“The church having now been freely established on heavenly principles outside Jerusalem, Satan seeks to introduce
confusion by bringing in the law upon them; and God, to
maintain unity, causes the matter to be referred to Jerusalem, so that the apostles there, and the church, should themselves declare the Gentiles free . . . they dismiss Judas and
Silas; then we get another thing, Paul gathering fellowlaborers around himself . . . Now, we get the direct guidance
of the Holy Ghost in the carrying out of his ministry; but
that direct guidance as not excluding his drawing conclusions from divine intimations sent to him. Then we have
Paul pursuing his ministry -- kept of God everywhere -- the
very demons forced to own him -- and as competent as the
other apostles to confer the Holy Ghost: free ministry,
under the guidance of God’s Spirit. still going on” (Collected
Writings of J. N. Darby 19:29).
“And now Paul, returning to Jerusalem, intimates the close
of his ministry in those parts to the elders of Ephesus at Melitus, predicting the efforts of Satan, and calling upon them
to watch and labor with the same earnestness and energy as
had marked his own labors amongst them . . . He now
returns to Jerusalem, the Holy Ghost warning him, and the
disciples telling him by the Spirit, not to go up. On the suggestion of the elders at Jerusalem, he accommodates himself
to Jewish ceremonies, the believers at Jerusalem being all
zealous of the law. This brings him into captivity; but the
effect of the captivity is to bring him into the place of testimony before the Jews, who refuse grace to the Gentiles,
before Lysias, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and Nero. But he is a
prisoner all the time, and as such he works at Rome. (Paul’s
gospel was a prisoner at Rome from the first day.) This
closes the testimony to the Jews; and thus closes the history
we have of the dissemination of the gospel in apostolic
times” (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby 19:30).
The Jews had rejected the Lord Jesus when He came
in grace here below, thereby closing the history and trial of
the first man. The Second Man, having been exalted above,
consequently sent the Spirit in testimony to that exaltation -first to the Jews, but they did not repent of their wickedness.
And finally, they did what they could to hinder the grace
flowing down from the glory, ministered by the Spirit to the
Gentiles. And connected with these repeated exposures of
their state, the Spirit proceeded with another work, the
opening of the heavenly parenthesis on the day of Pentecost,
the formation of the body of Christ on that day, the gathering in of Gentiles and the unfolding of the heavenly truth of
Christ’s glory and the position of the saints, through the
ministry of Paul. All was perfectly timed as only God can
sovereignly do for His own glorification in Christ. For God
has but one purpose: to glorify Himself in Christ -- but in
two spheres, the earthly and the heavenly. The Spirit’s
present work regarding the heavenly parenthesis will end at
the rapture. Even so, come Lord Jesus!
R. A. Huebner 1993
Chapter 3.9: The Opening of the Heavenly Parenthesis
145
Chapter 3.9
The Opening of
the Heavenly Parenthesis
With an Answer to So-called
Ultradispensationalism
Introduction
At the rear cover there is a chart outlining the major
divisions of the book of Acts, which book gives us the
history of the Spirit’s testimony to Christ resurrected and
glorified. The truths connected with the heavenly parenthesis
were not unfolded suddenly on the day that parenthesis
opened. The chart will assist in seeing how God worked in
unfolding the truth of the mystery of Christ and the church,
though the heavenly parenthesis opened on the day of
Pentecost.
The opening of the heavenly parenthesis is interconnected
with truths and facts that would help us understand why the
heavenly parenthesis (which is bound up with the formation
of the body of Christ) opened when it did. In particular, it
is important to understand the truth regarding the two men
(1 Cor. 15:45-47), when the trial of that first man was
completed and consequently the second man (Christ) was
established, 126 and when the fall of Israel occurred. We will
also examine in some detail the subject of the baptism in the
Spirit, when it occurred and the results. Pentecost, and
Joel’s prophecy (cited in Acts 2), will also be considered.
There are Christians who claim that the body of Christ
was begun with the salvation of Paul. I will refer to this as
the Acts 9 position. Others claim that the body began in Acts
13 (Acts 13 position). Others say it was formed in
connection with Paul being in prison (Acts 28 position).
These later are followers of the scheme of E. W. Bullinger
(1837-1913) and have been called “Bullingerites” and “ultradispensationalists.” Many of them hold the doctrine of the
annihilation of the wicked -- a doctrine that is a fundamental
126. Of course He was the second man before the cross, when here on earth
in manhood, as to His person, but it was in resurrection that He took the
position of the second man.
affront to the work of the atonement. 127 E. W. Bullinger
seemed to hold a sort of Acts 13 type position in his The
Church Epistles, 128 but under the influence of Charles Welch
he switched to the Acts 28 position.
Subsequently, J. C. O’Hair (independently of E. W.
Bullinger, he claims) took an Acts 13 position. From this the
Acts 9 position sprang, C. R. Stam apparently being the
father of this variation. These do not hold annihilationism or
the unconscious state of the dead.
I have thought it well to thus briefly touch on these errors
because we will consider teachings of the Acts 9 and 13
positions, showing how refusal of the fact that the body was
formed at Pentecost leads to setting up two churches, two
baptisms in the Spirit and two different meanings for persons
being “in Christ,” thus even placing O. T. saints “in Christ,”
and other errors (such as the denial, in effect, that the
standing and testing of the first man was ended at the cross;
consequently leading to error concerning the new creation).
And such supposedly revel in the truth of the mystery -- but
I suggest that these positions lower Christ’s glory and
confuse the Christian position and the truths that Christians
ought to apprehend.
The next two pages give a true view of the Acts, contra
“ultradispensationalism” (not the best description), Then we
shall examine some of the erroneous teachings on which
“ultradispensationalism” rests beginning with how the system
necessarily denies that the trial of the first man ended at the
cross and that consequently the Second Man took His place.
127. E. W. Bullinger did not hold the idea of the annihilation of the wicked
though he held a doctrine sometimes called “soul sleep” of the dead until
resurrection.
128. Some of Dr. Bullinger’s notions regarding the mystery of Christ and the
church were examined in The Bible Treasury, New Series 1:124, etc.
146
The Trial of the First Man
Completed at the Cross
Here I shall comment on this subject in view of the system
which says that the body of Christ was not formed at
Pentecost (Acts 2), doing so from the perspective of the
teachings associated with the name of J. N. Darby -- which
I believe to be truth taught in the Word of God.
In effect, this system means that the trial, the probation of
the first man, was not completed at the cross, for Israel was
still under testing in the early chapters of Acts. Thus, the
early chapters in Acts a part of a period, such say, of
prophecy, and not part of the time during which the church as
a mystery existed. Thus there are two churches, the first
being a kingdom church, beginning before the cross and
extending through the early chapters of Acts. Then,
consequent upon the salvation of Paul (Acts 9 position) the
mystery church, which displaced the kingdom church, was
begun (in some very vague way).
1 Cor. 15:45-47 reads:
Thus also it is written, The first man Adam became a
living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit. But that
which is spiritual [was] not first, but that which is natural,
then that which is spiritual: the first man out of [the] earth,
made of dust; the second man, out of heaven.
The first man, Adam, was appointed the head of the natural,
earthly creation. Such he was in his own person. But he fell,
and after the fall he begot children likewise fallen.
Consequent upon the fall, he became the head of a fallen
race. This fallen race is an order of men ranged under a
fallen head, Adam. It is an earthly order characterized by
“the first man.” This order of man stood before God in
responsibility. Adam had eaten of the tree of responsibility,
not of life. In the fall he had the knowledge of good and evil,
without the moral power to please God. His order of fallen
man was under probation, under testing, from the fall until
the rejection of Christ. All this is centered in what Scripture
calls “the first man.” We need to see that “the first man”
does not merely refer to the first in time. It has a moral
significance and refers to all ranged under Adam’s headship
as fallen. All men are naturally a replication of him as fallen
and hence we are “in Adam” naturally; or, as Scripture also
says, “in the flesh.” The trial of the first man ended in
putting Christ on the cross. Hence in the parable concerning
the vineyard, we read:
And at last he sent to them his son, saying, They will have
respect for my son (Matt. 21:37).
Yes, the time of respect will eventually come, but meanwhile
He was cast out, closing the times of testing of the first man.
Our Lord said:
Now is [the] judgment of this world; now shall the prince
of this world be cast out: and I, if I be lifted up out of the
earth, will draw all men unto me. But this he said
signifying by what death he was about to die (John 12:31).
Morally speaking, this was the end of the world, though the
sentence awaits execution, as He here anticipated. Another
Scripture reads:
(Heb. 9:26).
There is still an age to come (Heb. 6., etc.). The
consummation of the ages, here, refers to the ages (I did not
say dispensations, nor did Scripture) of the trial of fallen man,
the first man. It is His sacrifice which terminated the trial of
the first man. The conclusion in Rom. 3 is that the first man
is “without strength” when looked as at alive in sins. Indeed:
“Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for
it is not subject to the law of God; for neither indeed can it
be (Rom. 8:7).
Colossians, which stands between Romans and Ephesians in
doctrinal unfoldings, declares man to be “alienated and
enemies in mind by wicked works”(Col. 1:21), goes further
and declares man to be “dead in offenses” (Col. 2:13).
Ephesians simply begins with man being “dead in your
offenses and sins” (Eph. 2:1) and then shows the believer this:
(we too being dead in offenses,) has quickened us with the
Christ, (ye are saved by grace,) and has raised us up
together, and has made [us] sit down together in the
heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:5, 6).
Christ is called the last Adam because there will be no other
race after the one He formed. The word “Adam” signifies,
in both cases, the headship of a race. The first man, Adam,
was the head of the natural creation on earth while Christ is
head of the new creation. 129
Now, Christ took the place of the last Adam in
resurrection, and this was founded upon an accomplished
redemption. Christ is “the beginning of the creation of God”
(Rev. 3:14). When did that creation of God (i.e., the new
creation) begin? When Paul was saved (Acts 9); 130 or when
he began his formal ministry (Acts 13)? Of course not.
When Christ rose from among the dead He had that place.
Thus Col. 1:18: “Who is the beginning, firstborn 131 from
among the dead.” He stood forth in glorious resurrection in
resurrection-life. He had laid down His life, but took it again
in resurrection, and thus we call it resurrection-life, life on the
other side of death.
The Son had ever quickened whom He would. Thus, OT
saints, and also His disciples (except Judas) were quickened,
that is, had divine life, were born again. But His disciples that
129. Keep in mind that He is also head of other things also (Eph. 1:10,
21-23).
130. P. M. Sadler, editor of The Berean Searchlight, in a letter to me, dated
Dec. 15, 1989, affirmed that the new creation began with the salvation of
Paul.
131. “Only begotten Son” is a divine name. “Firstborn” is an acquired title
of rank, of preeminence. As come into the world He takes the place of
firstborn of all creation; as risen from among the dead, He takes the place
of firstborn from among the dead; and concerning brethren, He must needs
be firstborn among many brethren. It is not at all a matter of priority in time;
it is a matter of preeminence in rank and dignity.
were with Him, though having divine life were not connected
with Him as one in life with Him in resurrection-life. Such a
connection could only be with Him in His risen manhood.
Thus he Himself told us that before His death He abode alone:
Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it
abideth alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit (John
12:24).
He rose from among the dead in resurrection-life, Head of the
new creation, and shortly thereafter He breathed upon His
disciples (John 20:22) the Spirit as power of life, thus
characterizing the divine life they already had (as having been
born of God) as resurrection-life (John 20). The grain of
wheat fell into the ground and died and brought forth much
fruit (John 12:24). He now no longer abode alone, but the
disciples (as we do now also) formed one plant in Him (John
12:24), now having life in abundance 132 (John 10:10). This
is indeed oneness of life in the Son (1 John 5:11). 133
The second man (Christ) is out of heaven (1 Cor. 15:47).
This does not mean that His humanity came from heaven. It
came from Mary under the overshadowing power of the Holy
Spirit (Luke 1:35). The second man being out of heaven
refers to what characterizes the second man. It refers to what
is moral. He is characteristically a heavenly man. He was
from heaven. He was of heaven. And He will eternally bear
this character. And, oh joy, He has connected us with Himself
eternally, too. Not that we could be in deity; we have life in
the Son in connection with His risen manhood, now glorified
above all heavens.
None of this could be until that which was first, that
which was natural, was fully tried and found wanting. All this
blessedness awaited Christ’s death and resurrection. It could
not be earlier (John 12:24). There was a long period of trial
of the first man, Adam. What was first was natural (1 Cor.
15:46). The principle of this is illustrated throughout the book
of Genesis where the one born first does not obtain the
inheritance! Have you ever noticed that?
There is also the instructive word “yet” in Rom. 5:8.
Why does it say while we were “yet” sinners? The word
refers to the fact that though God tested the first man (all of us
ranged under his headship naturally) in every way, he was yet
but a sinner.
What was the last trial of the first man? Note that while
Israel stood in a special place, their trial was a part of the trial
of the first man -- now with promises, the law, priesthood,
sacrifices, the glory cloud, kings and prophets and the
covenants. All was failure upon failure. That is why the
prophetic ministry became so pronounced. But it was the trial
of the first man in the persons of the favored nation. The
132. This refers to the character of the resurrection-life, not to jubilance or
fruitfulness in the Christian.
133. Interestingly, in Letters of J. N. Darby 2:406 and 3:15, referring to
Christ as quickening spirit, he capitalizes “Spirit.”
147
parable of Matt. 21:33-46 tells the tale. The owner of the
vineyard had one remaining thing to do. He sent His Son.
They will reverence His Son, He said -- yes, but in a future
day, of course, when God will also answer the prayer of that
Son, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
The crucifixion closed the trial of man. It is a grave
mistake to think that the preaching in Acts 2-7 or 2-12 indicates
that the Jew was still under trial, that the first man was still
under trial. God’s dealings in trial concerning the first man
were over at the cross, and the second man consequently took
His place in glory, upon which the Spirit came in a special
capacity.
There are two truths that especially characterize the
heavenly parenthesis:
(1) Christ is in glory.
(2) The Spirit is here in the special capacity of testimony
to a resurrected and glorified Christ and for forming
a heavenly company united to the Head in heaven as
members of one body, etc. His coming at Pentecost
opened the heavenly parenthesis and when He, the
restrainer of 2 Thess. 2 leaves at the rapture of the
saints, the heavenly parenthesis will thereby be
closed.
Now, it is much to be observed that Christ taking His place in
glory and the coming of the Holy Spirit in this special capacity
is dependent upon the trial of the first man having been
completed. Christ resurrected and glorified is proof of it.
Note the sequence: “But that which is spiritual [was] not first,
but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual” (1 Cor.
15:46). It is contrary to Scripture that the natural (when the
first man was under trial) should have a standing before God
(as under testing) at the same time as the spiritual (when the
second man took His place). When did the second man take
his place? When Paul was saved (Acts 9) or began his formal
ministry (Acts 13)? Where is Scripture for such notions?
I ask, when did Christ take His place? What did it follow?
Paul’s salvation or the beginning of his formal ministry?
Listen:
. . . having made [by himself] the purification of sins, set
himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high,
taking a place so much better than the angels . . . (Heb. 1:3,
4).
Well, I suppose, no one would think otherwise than that He
took His place consequent upon His finished work and
resurrection. Why don’t all see that therefore the trial of the
first man (and therefore the trial of the first man in the persons
of the favored nation, the Jews) was over by their rejection and
crucifixion of the Son? Apparently not all Christians see the
end of the trial of the first man at the death of Christ, because
they say that what they call “the dispensation of the Spirit” (or
some, “the dispensation of grace” or “the dispensation of the
mystery”) began at Acts 9, or 13 or 28 or somewhere else.
148
Part of their system is that the Jews continued to be tested after
Acts 2 under the previous dispensation (or an additional one
intercalated) and up to Acts 9, or 13 or 28 according to the
school of opinion they espouse.
Those who delay the formation of the body of Christ to
some time after Acts 2 do not apprehend that the testing of the
first man ended with the cross. This seems implicit in ideas
concerning what a dispensation is. For example:
God Himself never changes. In His person, essence and
character He is the same yesterday, today and forever
(Heb. 13:8). His dealings with man, however, have
undergone various changes down through man’s history -changes made necessary down through man’s history.
Identifying these changes is a basic issue in studying the
Bible dispensationally for a dispensation is a particular
program that God administers (or dispenses) for man’s
obedience. 134
Since that writer holds that we are in a dispensation now,
with the idea it is “a particular program that God administers
(or dispenses) for man’s obedience,” this implies that man is
still under testing. That is, this system implicitly denies that
the cross ended the testing of the first man. Worse yet, what
this writer says implies that the first man is still under test
even after whenever he thinks the fall of Israel occurred.
Indeed, this is implicit in his definition of a dispensation.
And this brings us to the subject of Israel’s fall and when it
occurred.
The Stumbling of Israel
Rom. 11:11-15 reads:
I say then, Have they stumbled in order that they might fall
[B,FTF4<]? Far be the thought: but by their fall
[B"D"BJT:"J4] [there is] salvation to the nations to
provoke them to jealously. But if their fall [B"D"BJT:"]
[be the] world’s wealth, and their loss [the] wealth of [the]
nations, how much rather their fullness? For I speak to
you, the nations, inasmuch as I am apostle of nations, I
glorify my ministry: if by any means I shall provoke to
jealousy [them which are] my flesh, and shall save some
from among them. For if their casting away [be the]
world’s reconciliation, what [their] reception but life from
among the dead?
Rom. 11 does not support the notion that there is no future
for Israel as if they have irremediably fallen. They have
fallen but not irremediably. (Of course, the non-elect have
indeed fallen irremediably). In verse 11, the word “fall”
(B,FTF4<) means to fall irremediably so as not to regain the
former place. “Far be the thought,” says Paul. The next two
uses of the word “fall” in verses 11 and 12 are translated
“trespass” by W. Kelly and others. This is, perhaps, clearer.
134. R. Jordan (Acts 9 position), The Grace Journal, Nov. 1989, p. 1.
At any rate, it is a fall that involves a moral trespass on
Israel’s part.
Israel has stumbled but not so as to fall irremediably.
Verse 15 speaks of their casting away, meaning that they are
laid aside. The natural branches (Jews) of the olive tree (a
figure for the line of God’s blessings) have been broken out
(Rom. 11:16-24) but not the elect Jews; because some of the
branches were broken out (Rom. 11:17), thus not all.
Israel stumbled and fell (Rom. 11:11), were cast away
(Rom. 11:15) and blinded (Rom. 11:7), or as Wm. Kelly has
it, were “hardened.” The question before us is when did this
happen? I answer, the stumbling and fall and hardening of
Israel is interlocked with the end of the trial of the first man
and thus occurred at the death of the Lord Jesus, Whom they
slew. This is the trespass of Rom. 11. Just imagine delaying
this to when Paul was saved, 135 or began his formal ministry
or was put in prison or who knows where. Likely some will
say it occurred when Israel finally rejected the “reoffer” of
the kingdom in Acts. Such notions are the exigencies of a
false system. The reader should have noted by now that
implicit in moving the formation of the body of Christ from
Pentecost is the denial that the cross marked the end of the
trial of the first man. In effect, this makes something else the
turning point instead of Christ and the cross -- and thus far
lowers Christ’s work. How so, you say? Why, in the cross
God fully judged the first man, and put him away from before
Himself. This is why the Christian can reckon himself dead
(Rom 6). This is why a Christian can say, “I am crucified
with Christ . . . .” It is because the standing in Adam, the
first man, was terminated at calvary. It was part of Christ’s
work. Giving man any standing after that lowers the work of
Christ.
Christ Himself is the occasion of Israel’s fall:
And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother,
Lo, this [child] is set for the fall and rising up of many in
Israel (Luke 2:34).
It is Christ Himself that is the touchstone of this whole
question. Matt. 21:44 reads:
And he that falls on this stone shall be broken, but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.
Here are the two positions of our Lord: on earth as the stone
of stumbling, and above as the smiting stone. “And the chief
priests and the Pharisees, having heard his parables, knew
that he spoke about them” (Matt. 21:45). Reader, I ask you,
what was it that sealed their doom? Was it not what they did
to Him Who was set for the fall and rising of many in Israel
(Luke 2:34)? Was it not that they fell on this stone? He was
135. C. R. Stam (Acts 9 position) says that “God’s dealings with Israel at
Pentecost prove that He had not yet concluded them in unbelief or cast them
away at that time,” Acts Dispensationally Considered Chicago: The Berean
Bible Society, 1954, 1:69.
149
the stone that the builders rejected (Mark 12:10; Luke
20:17). Yes, He was the stone of stumbling and the rock of
offence (1 Pet. 2:7, 8). The subsequent preaching to Israel
(Acts 2-11) cannot change this. The parable in Matt. 21:3342 is express:
Jesus, those whose hearts were touched by the preaching in
Acts 2ff had an opportunity, as it were, to take the place of
the manslayer and run into the city of refuge, while the rest
were left for the avenger of blood to overtake them (Deut.
19).
And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard,
and killed him (v. 39).
It is true that reconciliation was sent to the Gentiles
consequent upon Israel’s fall (Rom. 11:11, 12, 15). This
does not prove that the message was sent (or had to be sent)
to the Gentiles, say, the day Israel fell, or the day after.
There was a lapse of time marked by the exposure of Israel’s
resisting the testimony of the Spirit regarding the resurrection
and exaltation of Christ. So before the Gentiles were blessed
and the mystery was revealed, the Jews were addressed first
(Acts 3:26). This was the first step in the NEW mission, new
because it was to the Gentiles, beginning, however, at
Jerusalem (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8).
And the hearers of the parable pronounced their own
judgment. The judgment, note well, turns upon the casting
out and killing of the heir.
When therefore the Lord of the vineyard comes, what shall
he do to those husbandmen? They say to him, He will
miserably destroy those evil men . . . (Matt. 21:40, 41).
The rejection of the Lord Jesus is very strongly marked in
Matthew which emphasizes God’s governmental dealings,
ways and changes. In Matt. 12, the leadership committed the
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, namely, saying that the
power (confessedly) working in Christ was Beelzebub’s
(Matt. 12:24). It may be perceived that in the unfolding of
God’s purpose in Matthew’s account, this led to the parabolic
form of teaching wherein certain things were meant to be
hidden from the rejecters of Christ (Matt. 13:13-15). He had
hinted to them that they would make of Him their adversary
(Matt. 5:25).
The rejection of the Lord came to a climax at the cross.
Just before He was crucified we read of His lament in Matt.
23:37-39 where He said, “Behold your house is left unto you
desolate.” A few days later, the awful shout of rejection rose
up before God, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).
Then they crucified the heir (Matt. 21:38) and therefore the
kingdom of God was taken from them (Matt. 21:43). Thus
Israel stumbled and fell.
The fact is that the Lord sought fruit from Israel for three
years, for Israel was a fig tree without figs, and the sentence
was:
. . . cut it down; why does it also render the ground
useless (Luke 13:7).
The added year (Acts 2 - 7) does not change the sentence
against Israel. Another year was added to demonstrate, not
that it would produce fruit, but to prove that the stumbling,
the fall, the blindness, had indeed taken place. It was a year
of exposure of the state of Israel, with respect to the rejected
one now in the glory of God, while the believing remnant
(the Israel of God) continued to be augmented. After that the
Word began to go forth to the Gentiles. It was not a
continuation of the testing of the first man. It was an added
demonstration of Israel’s resistance to the Spirit (Acts 7),
Who answers to the servant of the parable. They cast Christ
out down here and would not have a Christ in glory either
(Luke 19:11ff; Acts 7:54-58).
Additionally, when charged with the murder of the Lord
The Acts 9/13 position advocates have a difficult time pinpointing the fall of Israel, whereas it is interlocked with the
end of the testing of the first man; and thus the fall of Israel
occurred when the testing of the first man ended (the cross).
Consequently, the second man was glorified. The false
system results in a concurrent standing for both the first and
the second man. Now, Scripture declares that there was no
concurrency:
But that which is spiritual [was] not first, but that which is
natural, then that which is spiritual: the first man out of
[the] earth, made of dust; the second man, out of heaven
(1 Cor. 15:46, 47).
Previously, it was pointed out how a false definition of a
dispensation betrayed the fact that implicit in that definition
was a denial that the trial of the first man ended at the cross.
Of course, it would follow from this error that the same
writer would find the fall of Israel somewhere in Acts instead
of at the cross -- in order to suit the theory of the body of
Christ being formed with Paul’s salvation or his formal
ministry. The following citation will show this and also many
errors concerning how the N.T. is handled as a consequence
of delaying the formation of the body of Christ to a time
subsequent to Acts 2:
Time Past: In Matthew through John we find the earthly
ministry of Jesus Christ to the nation Israel. In the book of
Acts we have the fall of Israel and salvation going to the
Gentiles through the ministry of the Apostle Paul.
But Now: Romans through Philemon provide the doctrine
for the present dispensation of grace.
Ages To Come: Hebrews through Revelation focus on the
ages 136 to come when God will bring to fruition His
136. I hope the writer meant to say “age” because “the ages to come” refers
to the eternal state while “the age to come” is the millennium.
150
purposes for both the nation Israel and the Body of Christ.137
While Bullingerism gave rise to the term “ultradispensationalism,” there are references now to that as
“extreme” and the Acts 9/13 positions as “moderate.”
Distinctions do have value (especially if one feels
misrepresented). “Moderate” is too mild a word when I look
at the last quotation above.
Summary
The point at which the testing of the first man ended involves
many truths, some of which we have considered.
1. The testing of the first man ended with the death of
Christ, not at the salvation of Paul, nor at the beginning
of his formal ministry, nor when he was put in prison,
nor when Israel finally rejected the “reoffer” of the
kingdom, whenever that is supposed to have been.
2. Israel was cast away consequent upon slaying the Lord
Jesus.
3. The second man took His place in glory consequent upon
finishing redemption and its correlative ending of the
testing of the first man.
4. As a consequence of His taking His place above, the Holy
Spirit came down in a special capacity. He came to
empower the disciples for the NEW mission, to the
nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-49; Acts
1:8), and to baptize those who had believed on Christ into
one body (1 Cor. 12:13).
The Baptism in the Spirit
THE MAN IN THE GLORY
It is blessed indeed to contemplate our Lord Jesus as the man
in the glory of God. The eternal Son, Who always was, is,
and will be, uninterruptedly, in the bosom of the Father (John
1:18) yet speaks of Himself thus:
In John 17:5 we read:
And now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with
the glory which I had along with thee before the world was.
The blessed Lord never glorified Himself in any way. As
man He asks and receives everything. And now He requests
to enter that glory as to presence and place. It was a glory He
had along with the Father before the world was -- only now,
oh staggering thought, He would enter that personal glory as
man!
He had told His own that He was going to prepare a place
for them (John 14:3). This was a place above, to be shared
with Him. And as soon as He entered the place above, as
man, victorious over sin and hell and death, the place was
ready. He has not been busy for 1900 years getting it
prepared. No, no. When He entered there as glorified man,
it was by that very entry prepared.
He said, “and I sanctify myself for them . . .” (John
17:19). This sanctification is not in a moral sense -- could not
be -- but refers to setting Himself apart in the glory for
effecting our practical sanctification to God. And thus He is
in the glory the transforming object to our gaze (2 Cor. 3:18).
The cross marked the end of the testing of the first man;
and consequent upon that work the Lord Jesus was raised
from the dead by the glory of the Father (Rom. 6:4). Yea,
and God gave Him glory (1 Peter 1:21). There is a
consequence of the glorification of Christ. The Spirit could
not come until Christ was glorified (John 7:39).
The finished work of Christ, and the consequent
resurrection and glorification above is the great change upon
which all devolves, not the salvation or formal ministry of a
servant of Christ (Paul), however illustrious, or anything else.
See, for example, in Eph. 1:20-23 how all is connected with
Christ’s glorification. And so the giving of gifts is likewise
the expression and demonstration of His ascension into glory
(Eph. 4:9-13). We see some of these gifts functioning in the
early part of Acts, including Philip the evangelist. 138
THE COMING OF THE SPIRIT
. . . and have believed that I came out from God. I came
out from the Father and have come into the world; again,
I leave the world and go to the Father (John 16:27, 28).
The Spirit is omnipresent, present everywhere. He was here
in O.T. times. Yet our Lord spoke of the Spirit as One Who
would come:
How unspeakably precious this is to the soul! He came out
from God and came out from the Father. Have you noticed
that this is, so to speak, movement in the Godhead? Why,
yes, my soul, it is movement in the Godhead, the Son coming
out from the Father and coming into the world. The Father
was the Father when (and before, too) the Son so came out.
And it was the Son, as such, Who came out from the
Father, as such, before He came into the world in
incarnation.
But I say the truth to you, It is profitable for you that I go
away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come
to you; but if I go I will send him to you (John 16:7).
137. R. Jordan, The Grace Journal, Nov. 1989, p. 5.
Here we learn that in order for the Spirit to come, the Lord
Jesus would have to go away (into the glory, of course). We
also learn that as thus gone away, the Lord would send the
138. In Eph. 4, the gifts given are the men themselves, given from Christ, the
head of the body, to activate and stir up the ministry of all the joints and
bands. In 1 Cor. 12, the gifts are looked at as in the persons and are
manifestations of the Spirit for profit. In Rom. 12, the gifts are viewed as
services to God.
Spirit. Not only must the Lord go away before the Spirit
would come, the Lord had to be glorified first:
But this he said concerning the Spirit, which they that
believed on him were about to receive; for [the] Spirit was
not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John
7:39).
There are several other Scriptures to note:
And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another
Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, the Spirit of
truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not
see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides
with you, and shall be in you (John 14:16-17).
. . . but the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have
said to you (John 14:26).
Those who receive the Spirit during the heavenly parenthesis
will have Him for ever. 139 He is not a come-and-go Spirit.
The words, “for he abides with you,” do not mean that they
had Him indwelling already, for He had not come yet to
abide in them. It is a statement of character; He is such a
One as abides -- once come, of course, in this special
capacity. He was not yet in them, but “shall be in you.”
Note also that the Father would send the Spirit in the
Son’s name. In John 16:7 we saw that the Son would send
Him. Thus both would send Him; and the Spirit would be
the divine remembrancer and teacher.
In Luke 24:49 we read:
And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you;
but do ye remain in the city till ye be clothed with power
from on high.
The Spirit is the promise of the Father and thus He is the
Holy Spirit of promise, as we read of Him in Eph. 1:13.
. . . in whom also, having believed, ye were sealed with the
Holy Spirit of promise.
Why is He so designated in Eph. 1 as “the Holy Spirit of
promise?” It is to draw our attention to the connection with
what transpired at Pentecost when the Spirit came and
baptized those who had believed into one body (1 Cor.
12:13). He came at Pentecost as the promise of the Father
and formed the saints into one body united to the glorified
head in heaven. The body was formed once for all and we
are joined to it by the same Holy Spirit of promise (via
sealing) that formed that body.
Before the Lord Jesus was received up into glory He,
. . . commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem but to
await the promise of the Father, which [said he] ye have
heard of men. For John indeed baptized with water but ye
shall be baptized with [en] the Holy Spirit after now not
many days (Acts 1:4, 5).
151
So they waited; and the Spirit came at Pentecost, the 50th
day after the waving of the sheaf of firstfruits (Lev. 23). The
sheaf of firstfruits was waved before Jehovah the morrow
after the sabbath following the passover; i.e., on our Sunday.
This signified Christ’s resurrection as the firstfruits. Now, of
the grain of the same crop from which the sheaf of the
firstfruits came, were made two loaves. However, leaven was
put in the two loaves, for there is an evil nature in those who
compose the present testimony; but it was baked, and fire
(judgment, self-judgment) stops the action of the leaven. Two
loaves speak of testimony, testimony to Him Who is the
firstfruits.
The Spirit came, and parted tongues, as of fire, sat upon
each of those waiting according to our Lord’s instructions. In
Acts 2:32, 33 we read:
This Jesus has God raised up, whereof all we are witnesses.
Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear.
So our Lord, having been exalted received the Spirit the
second time. He received Him once as perfect man, in bodily
form as a dove, for Him did the Father seal without measure.
But now as glorified man, He received the Spirit in
consequence of His work which glorified God and saves and
cleanses sinners so that they, too, may receive the Spirit. The
Father gave Him, as glorified man, up there in the glory, the
Spirit, (i.e., gave Him the promised Spirit) and the glorified
Lord Jesus Christ sent that Holy Spirit of promise here below.
Thus were the Scriptures we have been considering fulfilled.
This was how both the Father and the Son sent the Spirit.
Note, too, that when we considered how the Son prayed in
John 17:5, asking to enter that glory which He had with the
Father before the world began, we noted that as man He asks
and receives all. He did not glorify himself. And here, in the
glory, as the glorified man, He asked the Father for the Spirit
for his disciples (John 14:16-17), and in the glory He received
the Spirit for His disciples, and sent that Spirit (Luke 24:49).
Of course, the Father also thus sent the Spirit. And the
coming of the Spirit clothed them with power from on high.
They were also baptized in the power of the Spirit into one
body, though the results of that were not revealed at this time,
for God would yet expose the moral state of Israel now
stumbled, fallen and blinded, doing so through their stubborn
refusal of the One now glorified.
The Spirit, we have been considering, came; came in a
special capacity, though He was ever here as the omnipresent
One. When will He leave? For those who understand that
the restrainer of 2 Thess. 2:7 is the Holy Spirit, it is clear that
He will be removed (in that special capacity) at the rapture.
Now, this is the close of the heavenly parenthesis. The close
of the heavenly parenthesis is coincident with the removal of
the Spirit, i.e., removal with respect to the special capacity in
139. Indeed, the church will have its place eternally, as Eph. 3:21 and
other Scriptures indicate. See Chapter 8.4.
152
which He came. 140 It is clear that He came at Pentecost. It
was His coming that is coincident with the opening of the
heavenly parenthesis -- a conclusion which is, of course,
opposed to the notion that the body of Christ began in Acts
9, 13 or 28, or anywhere other than Acts 2.
There Is Only One
Baptism in The Spirit
The reader may be aware that Pentecostal/Charismatics speak
of several baptisms in the Spirit, for they speak of in, by, of
and with, the Spirit. 141 Here are the passages, before
Pentecost, which speak of the baptism in the Spirit:
he shall baptize you with [en] the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11)
he shall baptize you with [en] the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:4)
he shall baptize you with [en] the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16)
he it is who baptizes with [en] the Holy Spirit (John 1:33)
ye shall be baptized with [en] the Holy Spirit after
now not many days (Acts 1:5)
In a footnote to the word “with” in Matt. 3:11, J. N. Darby
says, “En, ìn the power of,’ be it external or simply the
nature and character of, but always including the latter: see
Luke 2:72.”
The Pentecostal/Charismatic varying of the English
prepositions to represent en, in order to make several kinds
of Holy Spirit baptisms is a farce. Amazingly, C. R. Stam,
an advocate that the body of Christ began in Acts 9, did a
similar thing, while writing against Pentecostalism:
There is a vast difference between the baptism with or in
the Spirit at Pentecost and the baptism by the Spirit today.
At Pentecost it was Christ who baptized believers in or into
the Spirit (Matt. 3:11), while today it is the Holy Spirit who
baptizes believers into Christ and His Body (Rom. 6:3;
Titus 3:5; 1 Cor. 12:13). These are exactly opposite. 142
Of course, if 1 Cor. 12:13 does actually refer to Pentecost,
his entire system collapses. Rom. 6:3 reads eis Christ, i.e.,
unto Christ, and refers to water baptism (which he does not
believe, of course).
140. The Spirit will, of course, remain here as the omnipresent One,
effecting the new birth during the tribulation. What think you of the
understanding concerning what God is doing when posttribulationists object
that Ìf the Spirit is removed in a pretribulation rapture, how can anyone
thereafter be born again’?
141. See my The Word of God Versus the “Charismatic Renewal,”
obtainable from the publisher.
142. The Berean Searchlight, Sept. 1984, p. 168. So also his, Acts
Dispensationally Considered 1:70. R. C. Brock speaks similarly:
Paul is the only one who writes about this baptism BY the Holy
Spirit. What took place at Pentecost was the baptism with the
Holy Spirit BY the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 3:11; Acts
11:16). Christ continued His ministry to ISRAEL on the Day of
Pentecost. The Revelation of the Mystery, p. 12.
What this means is that there are two absolutely distinct
baptisms in the Spirit. It is really not possible to deny that a
baptism in the power of the Spirit took place at Pentecost, of
course. But the system involves that the body of Christ was
formed in Acts 9, Paul being the first member of that body.
The body never had only one member; no, not for one
second.
It is a Pentecostalist doctrine that persons were baptized
“into the Spirit.” There is no such teaching in Scripture.
Persons were baptized into one body.
It is true that Matt. 3:11 shows us that Christ is the
baptizer. The Spirit is the effectual power. But the gospels
do not tell what the result of Christ baptizing in the power of
the Spirit would be. It awaited the revelation of the mystery
of Christ and the church before the result would be stated;
namely, the formation of one body. So while the five
scriptures cited look forward, 1 Cor. 12:13 looks back at
what happened and tells us that the body of Christ was
formed.
1 Corinthians 12:13
1 Cor. 12:13 reads:
For also in [the power of] one Spirit we have all been
baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether
bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one
Spirit.
The word “in [the power of]” represents the same Greek
preposition, en, as in the other five places. Let us insert this
preposition.
For also en one Spirit we have all been baptized into one
body . . . (1 Cor. 12:13)
he it is who baptizes en the Holy Spirit (John 1:33).
Where the difficulty is in understanding this simple and
obvious connection is that men impose their troublesome
system on Scripture.
The baptism in the Spirit is a once -for-all event. It happened
only once. J. N. Darby remarked:
As to 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, it is the aorist
(,$"BJ4F20:,<) and therefore says nothing of continuity:
it is continuous, if we speak of individuals receiving the
Holy Ghost. But people look for a re-giving of the Holy
Ghost, as if He did not abide for ever; and the thought of
re-giving denies that, and also the responsibility of the
church consequent upon it, which is a great evil. 143
When a Christian is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise
(Eph. 1:13), Who is the same Holy Spirit of promise that
came at Pentecost, as we have seen, he is joined to the Lord
(1 Cor. 6:17) and thus becomes a member of that body oncefor-all formed at Pentecost. It was the man in the glory that
baptized, in the power of one Spirit, those that had believed,
143. Letters 3:467.
into one body. Now, by sealing, 1 Cor. 12:13 is made good
to us.
So the above citation from C. R. Stam, regarding several
differing baptisms en Spirit, says five references to the
baptism en Spirit refer to one thing and the sixth reference 144
to the baptism en Spirit refers to another thing (no evidence
being produced in Acts 9-28 for its occurrence). His
system requires this. It takes away, too, the truth that the
man in the glory was not the baptizer, en Spirit into one
body. The theory is that the Spirit, not Christ, in virtue of
one Spirit, formed the body. I think this lowers one of
Christ’s glories.
I suppose also that this must mean that some like Peter
were baptized into the Spirit and Paul was not; that Peter
was clothed with power from on high by being baptized into
the Spirit, but Paul was not. I ask, did Peter ever become a
member of the body of Christ? When? -- and how (if not at
Pentecost)? What did it? How do we know? If so, then he
was a member of the body as Paul was, but in addition, he
was baptized into the Spirit and clothed with power from on
high. Poor Paul; he missed being clothed with power from
on high, yet he said,
For I reckon that in nothing I am behind those who are in
surpassing degree apostles (2 Cor. 11:59; cp. 12:11, 12).
As we have considered the doctrine of two distinct baptisms
in the Spirit for the purpose of delaying the formation of the
body of Christ (and thus the opening of the heavenly
parenthesis), it follows that what it means to be
positionally”in Christ” must be also divided into two
different things.
The body of Christ is a joint-body of Jews and Gentiles.
The fact that no Gentiles were added to the body until after
Pentecost is beside the point. 1 Cor. 12:13 comprehends all
members from Pentecost until the rapture, though that
baptism took place at Pentecost. We are joined to that body
when sealed with the same Holy Spirit of promise in the
power of Whom that body was then formed. That baptism is
an all-encompassing and embracing event as is this:
. . . has quickened us with the Christ (ye are saved by
grace) and has raised [us] up together, and has made [us] sit
down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:5,
6).
So just as these things are true in connection with Christ’s
resurrection and seating above, and God including us in His
divine view of it, so with 1 Cor. 12:13. Jews, Greeks, bond
or free did not need to be present at Pentecost any more than
you or I needed to be present when Christ was raised, in
order for God to count us as raised up together with Christ
(Eph. 2:6).
144. Actually there is one more such reference (Acts 11) where Peter refers
to it in looking back to Pentecost.
153
“In Christ” and the Finished Work of
Christ for Salvation
“IN CHRIST”
On the day of Pentecost, those baptized in [the power of] one
Spirit into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), were made members one
of another and were joined to the head in heaven, the man in
the glory. “For even as the body is one and has many
members, but all the members of the body, being many, are
one body, so also [is] the Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12). “The
Christ” in this passage is likened to the human body. In this
passage, “the Christ” refers to the Head in glory and the
members on earth forming -- “the Christ.” All such have the
indwelling Spirit. “But he that [is] joined to the Lord is one
Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:17). The man in the glory received the
Spirit there, in consequence of the perfection of His work,
and poured Him out upon those fit to receive the Spirit, as
those cleansed by that perfect work (Acts 2:32, 33). So He
received the Spirit and they below received the Spirit; and He
above and they below were joined, united, by one Spirit (a
collective act). Subsequent to Pentecost, saints are joined to
that body when sealed (an individual act) with the Holy Spirit
of promise (Eph. 1:13).
Hence, those who were “in Christ” between Pentecost and
Paul’s salvation were “in Christ” before Paul. Paul stated
that some were “in Christ” before him.
Salute Andronicus and Junia . . . who were also in Christ
before me (Rom. 16:7).
What this means is that the body of Christ, formed by Christ’s
baptizing, in the power of one Spirit, into one body, existed
before Paul was “in Christ”; and the only time this could
have happened was at Pentecost. Therefore, those who say
that the body was formed when Paul was saved, or later, must
explain away the above verse. Here is a way in which an
Acts 9 position advocate does so.
When the Apostle Paul makes mention of those who were
in Christ before him he does not mean to imply that
Andronicus and Junia were in the Body of Christ before
him. It deserves our most thoughtful attention that the
Church, the Body of Christ, was not even introduced on the
stage of this world until the conversation of Paul, who was
the first member of that Body (Col. 1:24-26; 1 Tim. 1:1216). The phrase in Christ used by the Apostle here in
Roman 16:7 is to be understood in its broadest sense of
redemption. Every blood-washed saint of all ages can be
said to be in Christ redemptively. He stands before God,
not in himself, but in Christ! 145
The believers of this dispensation have the unique honor to
not only be in Christ redemptively, but also in Christ as far
as being in the Body of Christ is concerned. Christ, who is
our head, is the one we share in common -- He is the
145. P. M. Sadler, The Berean Searchlight Nov. 1989, pp. 229,230.
154
common denominator. 146
OT saints are nowhere in Scripture said to be “in Christ.”
The writer has manufactured this idea and says they were, not
because Scripture says so, but because it is a notion essential
to his system; and without this invention of these two kinds
of “in Christ,” the system collapses -- because there were
persons in Christ before Paul, thus indicating that the body of
Christ began before Paul.
It is alleged that 1 Cor 15:22 demonstrates that it is a
redemptive term:
While dispensationally it is possible to be “in Christ” either
according to the prophetic program (Gen. 22:18, Isa.
45:25) or the mystery program (Eph. 2:13; 3:6), 147 the
term itself is actually a redemptive term, as 1 Cor. 15:22
demonstrates . . . . 148
Appending a reference to Gen 22:25 and Isa. 45:25 exposes
that he has no warrant for his notion of O. T. saints being in
Christ. Note that Eph. 1:10 says:
. . . to head up all things in the Christ.
1 Cor 15:22 says:
For as in the Adam all die, thus also in the Christ all shall
be made alive.
Here we have “in the Christ” as in Eph. 1:10. It is not a
redemptive expression. Moreover, the words “be made
alive” refer to resurrection, to being raised from physical
death, not to redemption. Besides, saying that in the Christ
all will be made alive is not the same thing as saying that all
those made alive are “in Christ.” It is clear that 1 Cor 15:22
does not “demonstrate” that “in Christ” is a redemptive term.
In the next verse (v. 23) we read:
But each in his own rank: [the] firstfruits, Christ; then
those that are the Christ’s at his coming.
All saints belong to Him but that is not to say that all saints
are “in Christ,” which is the Christian position in which we
are before God Keep in mind that what gave rise to these
erroneous notions is the need to prove some other erroneous
notions.
THE FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST FOR SALVATION
Not only were the early saints in Acts not “in Christ” as
members of His body according to this system, we are also
informed that they did not have the finished work of Christ
for salvation preached to them. C. R. Stam wrote:
We should like to ask who, before Paul, proclaimed the
finished work of Christ for salvation. Did Peter preach this
at Pentecost? (see Acts 2:38 and cf. Rom. 3:21; Gal.
146. Ibid., p. 235.
147. {They define “the prophetic program” as that which ran up until
Acts 9, and then “the mystery program” began. That allows them to
generate “the Kingdom Church,” in which the disciples and the Lord
were, and which ran on in the early chapters of Acts. This “Kingdom
Church” gradually faded off the scene}.
148. R. Jordan, The Grace Journal, Jan./Feb. 1991, p. 1.
3:23; 1 Tim. 2:5-7). And who before Paul presented
Christ as Head of a new race? 149 Did Peter at Pentecost?
Did he not rather present Him as King of Israel? (Acts 2
and 3). Christ as head of a new race was revealed through
Paul with the ushering in of the dispensation of grace and
the mystery (Rom. 5:12-19; cf. Eph. 2:15; 3:1-3). Does
this sound as if “basic salvation” was presented for the faith
of “all believers, regardless of calling”? 150
Regarding the souls that accepted what Peter preached, we are
told that they were “saved” (Acts 2:47). The saved persons
also continued in “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42). In Luke
22:19 we read that the Lord Jesus said:
This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me . . . This cup [is] the new covenant in
my blood, which is poured out for you.
Paul, in 1 Cor. 11 refers to this remembrance of the Lord.
Certainly from Pentecost on the disciples continued to
remember the Lord in His death for them. Keep in mind that
the idea we are reviewing is that these “saved” ones who
remembered the Lord Jesus in His death for them in the
breaking of bread allegedly did so apart from having had
presented to them “the finished work for salvation.” Peter
preached:
Repent, therefore, and be converted, for the blotting out of
your sins (Acts 3:19).
Is not the effect of the notion being reviewed that these saints
had the forgiveness of sins preached to them as a result of
Christ’s death and had their sins blotted out without
knowledge of the finished work of Christ for salvation? In
Acts 4:12 Peter says:
and salvation is in none other, for neither is their another
name under heaven which is given among men by which we
must be saved.
Also, Peter preached forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:32). So
these so-called Kingdom Church people were indwelt by the
Holy Spirit of promise sent down as a result of Christ’s
finished work, His resurrection and exaltation; they had their
sins blotted out, had Christ presented as the only One in
Whom there is salvation, were saved, had forgiveness of sins
-- all without having had, it is alleged, the preaching of the
finished work of Christ for salvation, because, allegedly, no
one before Paul preached this. This is an excellent example
of how systematized error works. The final section of this
chapter, where we will consider the new mission, also has a
bearing on this issue.
149. His method here is to link together what is true (concerning Paul and
Christ’s headship) with his unfounded assertion.
150. Did the Twelve Apostles Become Members of the Body of Christ?
Chicago: Berean Bible Society, 1963, p. 6.
The Church Divided
THE CHURCH DIVIDED
In Matt. 16:18 Christ spoke of building His church upon
Himself as Son of the living God. 151 It was something future.
In Acts 2:47 we learn that the Lord added daily to the
church. The church had been formed previously that
morning and continually thereafter received accessions. In
Acts 5:11 we learn of an occasion when great fear came on
the church, while Acts 8:1 speaks of the church at Jerusalem.
Paul made havoc of the church, Acts 8:3. The system which
delays the formation of the body until Acts 9 would not
regard these as references to the church which is Christ’s
body. 152
We might ask, in view of Acts 8:1 speaking of the church
at Jerusalem, if the reference to the church in Jerusalem in
Acts 11:22 is the pre-body “Kingdom Church”; or did the
pre-body Kingdom Church at Jerusalem change into the
church which is Christ’s body? And if it changed, when did
it change, and how did it change? What is the Scripture that
tells us about these changes? In Acts 15:4 we find Paul being
received by the church at Jerusalem. Was it then part of the
church which is Christ’s body? If so, when and how did it
change over? And if it had not changed into the body of
Christ, what did Paul have to do with it? But if the church at
Jerusalem was still “the Kingdom Church,” then we have the
interesting phenomenon of the delivery of the decrees of the
apostles and “the Kingdom Church” to all others to keep
(i.e., those who were in the body of Christ).
Before Paul was saved he persecuted the church (Acts
8:3); i.e., the Kingdom Church, as we are supposed to
believe. So fierce was he that “being exceedingly furious
against them, I persecuted them even to cities out [of our own
land].” So there must have been quite a few of these socalled Kingdom Churches (cp. also Acts 9:31).
151. C. R. Stam wrote:
Israel was the Church, God’s called-out people, when she was in
covenant relationship with Him. Similarly, the “my Church” of
which our Lord spoke, was to be founded upon a recognition of
Himself as Israel’s Messiah (See Matt. 16:16; John 1:49; 11:27;
etc.) not upon a recognition of Christ as the exalted Lord, the
Dispenser of grace to a Lost world. The Church, The Bride and
the Body, Chicago: The Berean Bible Society, p. 2.
Scripture says, “Christ, the Son of the Living God,” “and upon this rock I
will build my assembly” (Matt. 16:16,18). It is Christ, not as Israel’s
Messiah but, in his character as Son of God upon which this assembly is
built. And note how Paul immediately began preaching Christ in this
character (Acts 9:20). We know that it was Paul who doctrinally laid the
foundation (1 Cor. 3:10,11). Note also that our Lord said He would build,
not ‘I am building.’ The notion that Christ built a Messianic, or Kingdom,
Church is another myth of the system we are considering. The church Christ
referred to began at Pentecost.
152. C. F. Baker (Acts 13 position), A Dispensational Theology, Grand
Rapids: Grace Bible College Publications, 1972, pp. 528, 529, calls it “the
Kingdom Church which Christ was building” and “Church of Israelites”
which Christ gathered around Himself and which existed at Pentecost.
155
In 1 Cor. 15:9 he says that he persecuted the Church of
God. Here the church is not looked at in a local character but
as an entity encompassing all believers on earth. It is the
church on earth that he persecuted. In 1 Cor. 1:2 he
addressed the epistle to the church of God at Corinth. He
used the expression “church of God” in 1 Cor. 10:32 and
11:22 also. Evidently the Corinthians were part of the body
of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Were they supposed to think that
“church of God” in three passages had to do with the body of
Christ and the last one referred to the Kingdom Church? In
persecuting the church, Paul was persecuting Christ’s body
(and thus persecuting Christ -- Acts 9:4). Were the Galatians
supposed to know that he persecuted the Kingdom Church
(Gal. 1:13); and the Philippians also (Phil. 3:6)?
Well, those who believe in two baptisms in the Spirit and
two kinds of being “in Christ” are quite capable of believing
such things. The system demands it. The system collapses if
any one of these distinctions is false.
Two arguments offered to prove the existence of two
fundamentally different churches are these:
1. Acts 2:41 says that souls were added and a thing has to
exist already to receive additions. Therefore, the church
already existed at Pentecost. 153
These 3000 “were added in that day” to what had been
formed just that very morning. Peter and those with him
had received the baptism in the Spirit and thus formed one
body (1 Cor. 12:13). Subsequent to this, on the same
day, after the preaching, about 3000 were added. The
above argument does not prove the church existed before
Pentecost. The Lord said “I will build” (not, I am
building) “my church”; and we first hear of its existence
in the early chapters of Acts.
2. When Paul says “the church which is His body” he
implies another church which is not Christ’s body. 154
Col. 1:18 says, “and he is the head of the body, the
assembly.” Reasoning in the same manner, one would
allege that this implies another body, which is not the
assembly. 1 Tim. 3:15 says, “. . . how one ought to
conduct oneself in God’s house, which is [the] assembly
of [the] living God.” Does this imply that there is another
house of God, which is not the assembly? If I were to
assert such things would you not conclude I was trying to
bolster an unscriptural system?
WAS PAUL THE FIRST MEMBER
OF THE BODY OF CHRIST?
Recall that in the above citation from P. M. Sadler (Acts 9
position), he said:
. . . the church, the body of Christ, was not even introduced
on the stage of this world until the conversion of Paul, who
153. C. F. Baker (Acts 13 position), A Dispensational Theology, p. 483.
154. Ibid., p. 483.
156
was the first member of the Body (Col. 1:24-26; 1 Tim.
1:12-16). 155
Is it not rather obvious that Paul being the special minister of
the mystery that is spoken of in Col. 1:24-26 does not prove
that the mystery began with Paul? It began at Pentecost but
the doctrine of it was not manifested to the saints
immediately. But besides the hollow reasoning about Col.
1:24-26, there is an appeal to 1 Tim. 1:12-16 as if this
Scripture states Paul was the first member of the body of
Christ. Paul says, rather, that he is the first of sinners. The
text states that. But let us see how the reasoning proceeds.
The BODY OF CHRIST begins with the Apostle Paul.
Notice very carefully his testimony to this fact.
1 Timothy 1:13-16, “Who was before a blasphemer and a
persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy because I
did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord
was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in
Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all
acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners; of whom I am FIRST (chief). Howbeit for this
cause I obtained mercy, that in me FIRST Jesus Christ
might show forth all longsuffering, for a PATTERN to
them which should hereafter believe of Him to life
everlasting.”
This is the Holy Spirit’s interpretation of Paul’s conversion
in Acts 9. It is worthy enough to be accepted by all. The
word ‘first’ is the same Greek word in both cases, and the
using of ‘chief’ as a translation is very misleading. Paul
was no worse a sinner than anybody else. All outside of
Christ are DEAD in sin (Ephesians 2:1). 156
The argument devolves upon the words “that in me first Jesus
Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern . . .
.” The writer takes this to refer to becoming a member of
the body of Christ. An implication is that thus he would be
the first to be baptized in the Spirit. Then a second person,
a third, etc; and thus the result is continuous baptism in the
Spirit -- which is contrary to the construction of 1 Cor.
12:13. It is not continuous but occurred once-for-all at
Pentecost. 1 Tim. 1:13-16 says nothing about entering the
body of Christ, or about the baptism in the Spirit. The
words, “that in me first,” refers to rank. W. Kelly translated
thus:
. . . Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of
whom I am chief. But for this cause mercy was shown me
that in me, [as] chief, Christ might display the whole longsuffering for an outline-sketch of those that should believe
on Him unto life eternal.
J. N. Darby translated:
. . . Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of
whom I am [the] first. But for this reason mercy was
155. The Berean Searchlight, Nov. 1989, p.230.
156. R.C. Brock, The Revelation of the Mystery, Pendley: St. Petersburg,
June 1968, p.6. Obviously, the Acts 13 position does not accept this
reasoning.
shown me, that in me, [the] first, Jesus Christ might display
the whole longsuffering, for a delineation of those about to
believe on him to life eternal.
If “first,” it is first in rank; if “chief,” it is chief in rank. In
both verses the word protos (chief/first) refers to the same
thing; namely, his rank as a sinner, not to being the first in
time to be a member of the body of Christ. It was the
character of His terrible persecutions that gave him this rank.
And the character of the grace shown to such a one was the
character of the grace shown to all.
C.R. Stam (Acts 9 position) wrote:
We believe that Paul’s conversion and call to apostleship
marks the beginning of the new dispensation and of the
body of Christ. 157
There is no proof whatever that the baptism in the Spirit of
1 Cor. 12:13 took place at that time, or any other time, if it
did not take place at Pentecost. “We believe” is what has
determined it for him, not Scripture.
It is interesting also that after the body of Christ was
allegedly formed with Paul’s salvation, the Spirit “fell upon
them even as upon us also at the beginning” says Peter,
concerning a group of Gentiles (Acts 11:15). For the Acts 13
position this is interesting because this would be the inclusion
of Gentiles in the Kingdom Church.
C. R. Stam’s Acts 9 theory can be illustrated this way:
Paul saved Thus, with Paul’s salvation
KINGDOM
CHURCH
BODY
CHURCH
the Kingdom Church suddenly
becomes the body church.
Concerning the “kingdom
program,” he says, “the
kingdom program gradually
disappeared, as the program
for the one body emerged thus:
KINGDOM
BODY
From Did the Twelve Apostles Become Members of the Body of
Christ? p. 1. The first diagram is my representation of his view. If
that is not accurate, Acts 9 position ultradispensationalists are free
to supply evidence of inaccuracy. The second diagram is his and it
shows, amazingly, two very distinct programs going on at once.
The truth is that there was one program that had several phases to it.
Acts is the history of the Spirit’s testimony to the resurrection and
glorification of Christ. The NEW mission to the Gentiles (Luke
24:47; Acts 1:8) began at Jerusalem, gathered in believing Jews
while exposing Israel’s resistance of the Spirit’s testimony, and then
went to Samaria and then outward. In due time the great secret
came out respecting the mystery, God having, however, formed the
body at Pentecost.
157. Acts Dispensationally Considered 1:176.
Joel’s Prophecy
JOEL’S PROPHECY NOT FULFILLED AT PENTECOST
We will consider this passage again in Part 3 but comment on
it here in connection with our present subject. Joel’s
prophecy, quoted by Peter in Acts 2, was not fulfilled at
Pentecost. 158 Let us consider why it was not fulfilled; and
after that, why Peter quoted Joel’s prophecy. First we will
place Joel 2:28,29 alongside of Acts 2:17,18:
And it shall come to pass
afterward [that] I will pour
out my Spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream
dreams, your young men shall
see visions. Yes, even upon
the bondmen and upon the
handmaid in those days will I
pour out my Spirit. (Joel
2:28, 29).
And it shall be in the last
days, saith God, [that] I will
pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh; and your sons and
your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young
men shall see visions, and
your elders shall dream with
dreams; yea, even upon my
bondmen and upon my
bondwomen in those days will
I pour out of my Spirit, and
they shall prophecy. (Acts
2:17, 18).
The number of people upon whom the Spirit came hardly
answers to “upon all flesh.” Granted that “upon all flesh”
does not mean every person on the globe; it does indicate
more than Jews only. It refers to people generally without
distinction of nationality and class. Those Jews present at
Pentecost, upon whom the Spirit came, do not answer to the
prophecy.
At Pentecost, those upon whom the Spirit came were
Jews. Now, the Spirit of God had numbers of O.T.
prophecies to cite, through Peter, referring to the pouring out
of the Spirit upon Israel (Isa. 32:15; 44:3, 4; Ezek. 36:27;
37:14; 39:29; cp. Isa. 59:21; Zech. 12:10 -- “at the end of
the days”), and needed not to cite Joel, who speaks of the
Spirit coming “upon all flesh,” if the intent was that
Pentecost was the fulfillment of prophecy concerning only the
Jews. 159 There is a suitability to citing Joel because of his
statement of the pouring out of the Spirit on “all flesh.” The
passage is cited in view of the fact that blessing was now
157
going to out to Gentiles. Of the prophets who speak of the
effusion of the Spirit, Joel is the only one who prophesies of
it as going beyond Israel. This is the prophecy selected by
the Spirit for Peter to use. I suggest that this is in keeping
with the new mission stated in Luke 24:47:
. . . and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at
Jerusalem.
The NEW mission given by the Lord (see also Acts 1:8),
whether understood by them or not is beside the point, was a
mission to the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. The prophecy
cited from Joel, regarding the effusion of the Spirit, includes
the nations (“all flesh”) and thus fits so beautifully in
application to Pentecost, for Pentecost began that new
mission.
References to the Spirit coming on Israelites clearly
refer to the millennium. And, the expression in Joel, “upon
all flesh” includes Israel.
Where is Joel’s prophecy placed chronologically? Joel
says, “And it shall come to pass afterwards . . . . After
what? Isa. 1:26 says of Jerusalem, “Afterwards thou shalt be
called, Town of righteousness, Faithful city.” Hosea 3:5
says, “Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek
Jehovah their God, and David their king; and shall turn with
fear toward Jehovah and toward his goodness, at the end of
days.” Compare the expression “at the end of days” with
Peter’s word, “and it shall be in the last days . . . .” These
verses all refer to the millennium.
It is claimed that Peter said the last days had arrived. Not
so (see Part 4 for details concerning this); nor was it yet the
prophesied last days of Joel. Nor did he say `this is the
fulfillment of that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.’
Besides, just shortly before, the disciples asked the Lord if it
was time for the kingdom to be restored to Israel (Acts 1).
Did the Lord tell them something to encourage them to think
that Israel’s last days were about to arrive?
There is no reference in Acts 2 to anyone actually
dreaming and seeing visions.
Now we will consider what was written concerning signs:
158. Amillennialists and postmillennialists believe Joel’s prophecy was
fulfilled. Such see the church as the spiritual Israel and believe that the
church was a subject of O.T. prophecy. Those who say that the body of
Christ was formed at Paul’s conversion, or later, also claim that Joel’s
prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. Their reason is that they view the early
chapters of Acts as strictly and only an era of prophetic fulfillment and thus
not a period included in the period of the body of Christ.
159. It is argued that 1 Cor. 12:13 cannot be applicable to Pentecost because
not all those classes were present. In response, we point out that there were
not representatives of “all flesh” there either.
158
And I will shew wonders in
the heavens and on the earth,
blood, and fire, and pillars of
smoke. The sun shall be
changed to darkness, and the
moon to blood, before the
great and terrible day of
Jehovah come. And it shall be
that whosoever shall call upon
the name of Jehovah shall be
saved: for in mount Zion and
in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as Jehovah hath said,
and for the residue whom
Jehovah shall call (Joel 2:3032).
And I will give wonders in the
heaven above and signs on the
earth below, blood, and fire,
and vapour of smoke: the sun
shall be changed to darkness
and the moon to blood, before
the great and gloriously
appearing day of [the] Lord
come. And it shall be that
whosoever shall call upon the
name of [the] Lord shall be
saved (Acts 2:19-21).
Spiritualizers may point to the destruction of Jerusalem (A D
70) to find a fulfillment of these signs. However, when
Jerusalem was destroyed in A. D. 70 there was no deliverance
in mount Zion and in Jerusalem. Indeed, it was quite the
opposite.
Moreover, the fact is that these signs will actually take
place before Israel’s deliverance and subsequent experience
of the Spirit being poured out. Notice, too, that Peter did not
cite all of Joel 2:32, the last half obviously pointing to a
future day for fulfillment of this prophecy. He sought to
make an application of the portion cited in Acts 2:21 to his
hearers.
The texts state expressly that these signs precede that
advent of the day of the Lord.160 And there will be those who
shall call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. The
pouring out of the Spirit will follow after the setting up of the
kingdom. Thus, the signs will precede, in time, the pouring
out of the Spirit. The destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)
cannot answer to the signs, therefore.
C. R. Stam (Acts 9 position) claims that `the signs of
Pentecost were to be followed by signs both in heaven and on
earth . . . .” 161 Concerning the purpose of Pentecost, he
claims it was for the purpose of enduing them with
“supernatural power” in preparation for the great tribulation
which would have come had God not intervened in grace. 162
This gives the appearance that he thinks that the effusion of
the Spirit was even to precede the great tribulation. C. F.
Baker (Acts 13 position), who asserts that Joel predicted
Pentecost (and thus Israel’s last days began) says that the
signs did not take place because Israel’s rulers “hardened
themselves in their unbelief and opposition to Christ.” 163
Not only do these writers reverse the order (necessary to their
system) but claim fulfillment of the prophecy, and some
excuse away non-fulfillment of parts of the prophecy. I
suppose anything can easily be `proved’ by such methods.
Referring to Joel 2:28-32, J. N. Darby noted:
This is an entirely distinct prophecy, which goes by
itself, preceding the day of Jehovah, as indeed is
clearly stated, which day ushers in the blessing
previously spoken of. The order in the last days will
be repentance, deliverance by the day of Jehovah,
temporal blessing, the Holy Ghost. Before the day of
Jehovah, signs will take place. This last stands
therefore necessarily apart, as the calling on the name
of Jehovah of course precedes the deliverance. 164
The Spirit, then, will be poured out upon all flesh in
connection with the setting up of the kingdom. In Acts 2 the
coming of the Spirit, which involved the baptism in the
Spirit, brought into being the body of Christ.
THIS IS THAT
As has already been indicated, Peter made an application of
two things in Joel’s prophecy:
1. What the onlookers were witnessing was consistent with
what Joel had said about the Spirit being poured out on
all flesh.
2. He used the point that whoever would call upon the name
of the Lord would be saved.
His thrust, then, was this has that character. It has been
objected that the text does not say `this has that character.’
Well, then, we ought to note that the text does not say `this
is the fulfillment of that.’ Notice Acts 1:16 shows Peter was
quite capable of using the word “fulfilled” (cp. Acts 3:18).
It is a prophecy of the signs preceding the establishment of
the kingdom, that those calling on the name of the Lord
would be saved and there would occur the pouring out of the
Spirit on all flesh. The fact is that there are numbers of
citations of the O. T. in the N. T. used in just this way as
Joel’s prophecy; for an application or illustration, while the
fulfillment of those passages is in the future.
The Day of Pentecost
IS PENTECOST RELATED TO THE CHURCH?
160. The Day of the Lord follows after the apostasy and the revelation of the
Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3). Man’s day (1 Cor. 4:3) continues until the
appearing of Christ in glory. With His appearing, man’s day is ended and the
Day of the Lord begins
162. Ibid., p. 119.
163. Understanding the Book of Acts, Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College
Publications, 1981, p.21.
164. Synopsis 2:366, note.
As part of the system of delaying the formation of the body of
Christ, C. R. Stam wrote:
Pentecost was a Jewish feast day, not related in any way to
the Body of Christ. 165
Paul wrote:
For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed; so that
let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven . . . (1 Cor.
5:7, 8).
Paul speaks of Jewish feasts and these feasts have application
to Christians. Passover, as we know, refers to the death of
Christ. The “feast,” however, refers to the feast of
unleavened bread which ran from the 15th to the 21st of the
month (Lev. 23). It denotes an unleavened walk and here
Paul applies it to Christians. Moreover, the feast of first
fruits (Lev. 23) typifies the resurrection of Christ. That, too,
is related to the body of Christ. There is one more of the four
feasts that took place in the first two months of the Jewish
year (starting with Abib -- Ex. 12), and that is Pentecost.
The last three feasts of Jehovah took place in the 7th
month and speak of the regathering of Israel (trumpets),
Israel’s national repentance (the day of atonement), and
Israel’s entry into rest (booths). 166 See Lev. 23. These apply
to Israel.
Not only have the feasts of Passover, Unleavened Bread,
Firstfruits and Pentecost something to do with the church
(which is Christ’s body) but in Ezekiel 40 - 48 where we learn
about feasts to be celebrated by Israel in the millennium, no
mention is made of Pentecost (the feast of Weeks). It received
its fulfillment just as passover did. However, Passover will
be celebrated in the millennium because the blood of the New
Covenant was shed for them also. Christ’s death had both us
in view and the nation of Israel, as such (John 11:51, 52).
Besides this, the waving of the sheaf of the firstfruits
(Christ in resurrection) and Pentecost have a connection. See
Lev. 23.
THE TIME OF THE FEAST
Israel was to count from, and include, the day that the wavesheaf was waved, seven sabbaths. That equals 49 days. They
were to count also the day after the seventh sabbath, which
made 50 days in all (Lev. 23:15, 16). This is where the word
Pentecost comes from. It refers to the 50th day. J. N. Darby
translated Acts 2:1, “And when the day of Pentecost was now
accomplishing . . . .” It was then that the Holy Spirit came
(John 7:39; Acts 2:32, 33) in a special capacity, the doctrine
of which was reserved for the apostle Paul to expound.
Lev. 23:15 says of the days, “they shall be complete.”
This is seven sevens. It signifies, I believe, the spiritual
exercises of the Lord’s people during those days that they
166. The reader will find the seven feasts of Lev. 23 positioned on a five
color chart in my Daniel’s 70 Weeks and the Revival of the Roman Empire,
available from the publisher.
159
were awaiting the descent of the Spirit. See Luke 24:29;
Acts 1. This was a time during which exercise for testimony
was prepared; which testimony is typified in bringing the two
loaves out of their dwellings. This was done on the morrow
after the seventh sabbath, the Lord’s day when fulfilled.
We should learn from this that it is morally right and
suitable that spiritual exercise precedes testimony and service.
A NEW MEAL OFFERING
There is a reason why the meal offering of the Feast of
Weeks is called a NEW meal offering, or, oblation (Lev.
23:16).
1. The meal offering of Lev. 2 typifies the perfection of
Christ in His holy Person and His walk for God’s glory,
as energized by the Spirit (the oil). No leaven was
allowed in it.
2. Hence this is a new meal-offering. It had leaven in it,
which was strictly forbidden in the meal offering which
speaks of Christ. Leaven denotes evil in Scripture usage.
THE CHARACTER OF THE NEW MEAL-OFFERING
Let us look at each characteristic of the new meal-offering.
1. It was brought “out of your dwellings.” To be a
testimony to the true character of the wave-sheaf (a
resurrected Christ) there must be an exercise of heart in
our dwelling. Where, and in what condition of soul, do
we spiritually dwell?
2. There were two wave-loaves. Two is the number of
testimony in Scripture. The Holy Spirit formed a
testimony, to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, at
Pentecost. They were made from the same grain as the
wave-sheaf. “Except a grain of wheat falling into the
ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much
fruit” (John 12:24). His grace has identified us with
Himself in His victory over death and with His
resurrection-life (John 20:22). As the sheaf of firstfruits
was waved before Jehovah, so were the loaves. The
waving signifies something for the enjoyment and
pleasure of God.
3. The wave-loaves were of two-tenths (of an ephah,
probably) of fine flour. The quantity of the wave-sheaf
was also two-tenths. Again we have the number of
testimony. It also means that we ought to maintain the
character of Christ Himself as the faithful and true
witness, for He has made us partakers of the divine nature
(2 Peter 1:4).
4. The wave loaves were baked with leaven. There was no
leaven in the meal-offering (Lev. 2) which typifies Christ.
Evil is present with me, said Paul (Rom. 7:21). The
leaven in the wave-loaves signifies the difference
between Christ and His people. But fire, representing
judgment, stops the action of leaven. Hence these are
baked loaves. Do we judge ourselves (1 Cor. 11:31)?
Self-judgment will stop the working of leaven. There is,
160
then, a treasure that we have in these earthen vessels. But
in the earthen vessel there is sin, and this refers to our
fallen nature. The prince of this world had nothing in
Christ (John 14:30). In us, alas, he has material upon
which to work. But fire, judgment, self-judgment, will
stop it working.
Now, Christ stood forth in victorious resurrection, “marked
out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness,
by resurrection of [the] dead” (Rom. 1:4). This is the waving
of the sheaf of firstfruits. Of necessity, there followed His
exaltation, “far above all the heavens, that He might fill all
things” (Eph. 4:11). He fills the very heart of the Father.
Oh, that He might fill your heart and mine!
The exaltation took place 40 days after He rose from the
dead (Acts 1). We may thus distinguish the resurrection and
exaltation but not separate them morally. On the 50th day,
the descent of the Spirit took place, forming what answered to
the wave-loaves. Yea, His coming formed the one body (1
Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:3), but this is not seen in the wave
loaves. The two wave-loaves typify a testimony, like Christ
Himself, to the true character of the wave-sheaf. We have
observed that Acts is the history of the Spirit’s testimony to
the resurrection and glorification of Christ.
THE CELEBRATION OF THE FEAST
No doubt the feast of weeks was celebrated many times in
Israel. It was one of the three feasts (Ex. 23:15,16; 34:22;
Deut. 16:16; 2 Chron, 8:13) at which all the males had to
appear before Jehovah. This did not hinder women and
children from coming however (1 Sam. 1:3, 4; Luke 2:41).
Note that a record in the O. T. of this feast being kept is
absent. Also, it is absent in Ezek. 45:21-25. It will have no
application in the millennium because it was fulfilled in Acts
2:1-4. What took place as recorded in Acts 2:1-4 is the
formation of a new testimony to the character of the wavesheaf. The testimony of the Jewish remnant during the great
tribulation will again be the gospel of the kingdom, which
John (Matt. 3:2) and our Lord (Matt. 4:17) preached. That is
the testimony to the coming of the kingdom in power, as
drawn nigh. That which was preached in the early part of
Acts is part of the new mission, to the Gentiles (Luke 24:47;
Acts 1:8), beginning at Jerusalem.
The Alleged Continuance
of the Kingdom Program
We are told that the early part of Acts is a continuation of the
kingdom program that existed before the cross. R. Jordan
(Acts 9 position) wrote,
“And that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations, BEGINNING AT
JERUSALEM” (Luke 24:47).
After some 40 days of personal instruction from their
resurrected Lord in things “pertaining to the kingdom of
God,” the apostles understood that the program of God still
focused on Israel and her coming kingdom:
“When they therefore were come together, they asked of
him, saying, LORD, WILT THOU AT THIS TIME
RESTORE AGAIN THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” (Acts
1:6). 167
It is interesting that he cited two Scriptures which show the
opposite of his theory. Notice where he put the emphasis in
Luke 24:47. He is trying to force continuity whereas this text
explicitly states discontinuity. The program our Lord
specified in Luke 24:47 was that repentance and remission of
sins should be preached among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem. This is the new program and it is not a
continuation of the kingdom for Israel program. Previous to
the cross the mission was expressly confined to Israel:
These twelve Jesus sent out when he had charged them,
saying, Go not off into [the] way of [the] nations, and into
a city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:6).
But he answering said, I have not been sent save to the lost
sheep of Israel’s house (Matt. 15:24).
Subsequent to the cross, we read:
And he said to them, go into all the world and preach the
glad tidings to all the creation . . . And they going forth
preached everywhere, the Lord working with [them], and
confirming the word by the signs following upon [it]
(Mark 16:15, 20; cp. Heb. 2, 3, 4).
Then opened he their understanding to understand the
scriptures, and said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it
behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third
day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name to all the nations beginning at
Jerusalem (Luke 24:45-47).
Now observe what could be said by the time the book of
Hebrews was written:
How shall we escape if we have been negligent of so great
salvation, which having had its commencement in being
spoken [of] by the Lord, 168 has been confirmed to us by
those who heard; God bearing, besides, witness with
[them] to [it], both by signs and wonders, and various
works of power, and distributions of [the] Holy Spirit,
according to his will? (Heb. 2:3, 4).
How much more clearly does it need to be stated before
believed? The “great salvation” the Lord spoke of was
spoken by the Apostles; and had application when the book
of Hebrews was written. To neglect that “great salvation”
was perilous to the soul at the time of the writing of Hebrews,
long after Paul was saved. Certainly more truth was revealed
through Paul, but the “great salvation” was preached before
Paul and was preached long after he was saved, and continues
to this day -- though Paul speaks of the gospel of the glory,
167. The Grace Journal, Nov. 1989, pp. 3,4.
168. See especially John’s gospel.
161
at Jerusalem.
which is an additional subject.
Of course Peter preached to the Jews. And it is quite true
that Acts 10:9-16 shows Peter’s Jewish prejudices. God knew
how to over-rule that. True, too, that Peter might have been
slow to grasp the implication of Luke 24:47. But for all that,
when guided in his preaching by the Spirit, he said, on the
very day of Pentecost itself:
For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all
who [are] afar off, as many as the Lord our God may call
(Acts 2:39).
Yes, we Gentiles who “once were afar off” (Eph. 2:13) are
included here in Acts 2:39, for the sovereign God has called
us. Peter says, “For to you is the promise.” I suggest that
this refers to the promise of the Holy Spirit (the promise of
the Father) about which the Lord had told them (Luke 24:49,
etc.). And not only did Jewish believers receive the promised
Holy Spirit, so did Gentiles:
. . . in whom also, having believed, ye were sealed with the
Holy Spirit of promise (Eph. 1:13).
Thus we are sealed with the same Holy Spirit of promise that
they received at Pentecost. How wonderfully all fits together.
The point here is, however, that in Acts 2:39, Peter, guided
by the Spirit, included the Gentiles.
In summary, observe these points:
1. Before the cross the preaching was confined to Israel.
169
2. Subsequent to the cross the Lord told them to preach to
the whole world. 170
3. They preached everywhere and the Lord worked with
them and confirmed this preaching everywhere with
signs. 171
4. The Lord told them to preach repentance and remission
(forgiveness) of sins. They did so.
5. Heb. 2:3, 4 calls this “great salvation” and says there was
witness to it by signs.
6. The Lord told the disciples that the preaching should begin
169. I do not enter here on the abeyance of the preaching of the gospel of the
kingdom and also the introduction of the parables of the mystery form of the
kingdom. It is clear that John’s gospel shows the Lord speaking of the great
salvation, though it awaited the atonement, His resurrection and glorification,
and the descent of the Spirit for its propagation.
170. The gospel of John assumes the rejection of the Lord at its very
beginning (John 1:11) and presents the eternal Son of God, the Lord Jesus,
as Savior of the world.
171. The theory that the signs and sign gifts were for the Jews (part of the
system we are noticing) is false. The signs authenticated the Apostles, as sent
from Christ. Paul calls them the signs indeed of the Apostle (2 Cor. 12:12).
Scripture does not state that the signs were for the Jew, though Jews sought
such. “So that tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to
unbelievers; but prophecy, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe”
(1 Cor. 14:22). Now, if you want to change the word “unbelievers” to
“Jews,” if you want to set up a theory that the signs were only for the Jews,
as J. C. O’Hair did, and go on and on with that way of handling Scripture,
you may end up holding the false system we have been noticing. I am aware
that Sir Robert Anderson held this idea of the signs.
7. The preaching, as guided by the Spirit, had in view those
who were afar off.
Now, this is obviously a NEW program, not a continuation of
the pre-cross program 172 to only the lost sheep of the house
of Israel. It is new in both content and audience. What the
disciples understood is not the point. The question is: What
was God’s program? Yes, the program was to begin at
Jerusalem, but that fact alone does not determine what the
program was, whatever else God may have been doing in
connection with Israel. 173 It is expressly stated that the
nations are in view. And what was the Lord’s answer to the
disciples’ question (Acts 1:6)? Did he encourage them to
expect the kingdom immediately? Quite the contrary.
Indeed, in Luke 19:11-27 we are expressly told that the
parable was stated because they were near Jerusalem and
because the disciples “thought that the kingdom of God was
about to be immediately manifested.”
In fact, He
subsequently told them what the program would be: “. . . and
ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea
and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Here
again is the new mission to the nations. Now, this shows a
break with what preceded. Yet, because the new program
was to start at Jerusalem, and it did, it is asserted that this is
only a continuation of a previous kingdom program. Such
false reasoning is required by the theory that the body was
formed some time after Pentecost (Acts 2).
It is claimed that the “first real offer of the kingdom” was
made after Pentecost (cp. Acts 3:19-21). C. R. Stam wrote,
“The kingdom was not even offered to Israel until
Pentecost “ 174 because Christ had to suffer first before the
kingdom glory would be realized (cp. Luke 24:26; 1 Pet.
1:11). To this I reply:
1. Certainly Christ had to suffer before the Kingdom would
be inaugurated. But as a matter of fact, we now know
that it was also the purpose of God (Eph. 3:11) that the
assembly be formed before the kingdom would be
established. The formation of the body, therefore, had to
be before the kingdom. But, behold, this fact did not set
aside the preaching of Acts 3:19-21. So I ask this: if a
real offer of the kingdom could not be made because
Christ had to suffer first, how could a “first real offer of
the kingdom” be made until the body of Christ was here
no longer, since in the divine purpose of the ages, the
formation of the body of Christ had to precede the
kingdom? Obviously, God is not limited in offering the
172. The Lord had spoken of bringing other sheep into one flock which were
not of the (Jewish) fold (John 10:16).
173. He would have a remnant according to the election of grace that was
there brought into blessing while exposing the fallen state of Israel, and their
resistance to the Spirit’s testimony to the resurrected and glorified Christ,
even as in the stoning of Stephen who testified to His place in the glory.
162
kingdom by either case.
2. Jerusalem had to be destroyed, not necessarily before the
rapture, but certainly before the setting up of the
kingdom (Matt. 22:7; Luke 21:20). Yet this did not
hinder the Spirit regarding what was said in Acts 3:1921. C. R. Stam’s reasoning is contrary to the facts of
Scripture -- yet required by his system. Surely his
system is wrong.
The objectors’ delay of the kingdom offer is part of a false
system and their reasoning upon it falsifies what the
sovereign God can and cannot do. He did offer the kingdom
in the Person of the lowly and meek Lord Jesus as a moral
test to thus bring out the state of the people. This false
system systematically takes away from Christ what is His
due.
The “Prophetic Clock”
Acts 9 position periodical contains the following comments
regarding Acts 7:54-56:
Don’t read over this too lightly, for a tremendous change
has taken place: In Acts 2 Peter warns them that Christ had
sat down in heaven at the Father’s right hand until that time
came for Him to return in wrath and destroy His enemies.
In Acts 7 Steven sees Christ standing -- no longer seated,
but now “standing on the right hand of God.” There is
only one scriptural explanation for the change in His
posture: the time for the outpouring of His wrath had
arrived. Our Lord was standing to do what Psalm 110:1
warned He would do: “make His foes His footstool.” . . .
At the very moment when the prophetic clock had reached
the hour of judgment, God in His grace interrupted the
prophetic program by ushering in an unprophecied [sic]
program -- a previously unknown purpose called “the
mystery” . . . .
. . . Just as the prophetic clouds of judgment lay heaviest on
the horizon, God in His infinite grace and manifold wisdom
interrupted prophecy . . . . 175
1. This falsifies the Word which says, with respect to His
enemies, “sit until.” This theory has Him sitting, getting up
and then sitting again with respect to His enemies; so he did
not do as the Psalm said: “sit until.”
2. His “only one scriptural explanation,” used to bolster the
Acts 9 position, being false, we may look for another
explanation. That kind of reasoning upon scripture to bolster
a false theory reminds me of an amusing posttribulationist
argument, which says, why do you pretribulationists say
Christ gets up from the throne to come for the rapture seven
years before He crushes his enemies, when Psa. 110:1 says
he sits until then? Suppose I were to reply that Christ sat
down in perpetuity (Heb. 10:12) and therefore will never get
175. The Grace Journal, vol. 3, # 5, May 1990, pp. 2,3.
up? You would answer, `But that sitting forever is with
respect to the finished work on the cross.” Well, of course;
but with respect to His enemies, He will not, nor ever has,
risen from the throne until His enemies are made the
footstool of His feet. That says nothing with respect to His
martyr Stephen, nor does it say anything with respect to the
rapture of the saints.
Distorted Scofieldian
Dispensationalism
In an Article, “Are We Ultra-Dispensationalists? A
Response to a Critique by Charles C. Ryrie,” 176 the editor,
P. M. Sadler, wrote:
Numerous times throughout the chapter on
Ultradispensationalism he makes the bold assertion, “In
other words, they are sure when the Church did not begin,
but are not sure when it did begin!” 177 Are we to conclude
a dispensational approach is untrue on the basis that there
is disagreement among some of the brethren? 178
I wonder if the last sentence means that if you believe that
the church began in Acts 2, you do not take a dispensational
approach. At any rate:
The precise moment the Body of Christ came into existence
in mid-Acts 179 is inconsequential. What must be
acknowledged, however, is the fact that the revelation of
the Church which is Christ’s body was first committed to
the Apostle Paul. On this essential of the faith the Grace
Movement does, indeed, speak with a unified voice. 180
Now, I also may think that the revelation of the mystery was
first given to Paul, but Scripture does not explicitly state
that. Yet he exalts it into “this essential of the faith.” On
that “the Grace Movement” is united -- that is, united on
what Scripture does not state -- but they are divided on when
the church began, and this is dismissed as inconsequential.
But he goes beyond exalting this into an “essential of the
faith” to contradicting what Scripture does expressly state.
After quoting Eph. 3:2, 9, Rom. 16:25 and Col. 1:25, 26,
he wrote:
So then, while Paul received the Mystery by direct
revelation from the Lord of glory, the apostles and
prophets, and those since, have received it through the
illumination of the Spirit (Gal. 1:11,12 cf. Eph. 3:5). 181
None of the Scriptures cited by him tell us that the apostles
and prophets received the mystery through illumination.
Rather, Eph. 3:5, to which he directs us, says:
176. P. M. Sadler, The Berean Searchlight, Nov. 1991, pp. 234-242.
177. [Dispensationalism Today, Chicago: Moody, p. 195, (1968).
178. The Berean Searchlight, Nov. 1991, p. 235.
179. {He quietly ignores the Acts 28 Bullingerites, but of course they do not
go away.}
180. Ibid.
181. Ibid., p. 241.
. . . as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and
prophets in [the power of the] Spirit . . . .
In effect, the writer is telling us that Paul could have written:
. . . as it is now revealed to his saints . . .
No! That is not going far enough. He is telling us that
“revelation” in v. 3 means revelation, but that “revealed” in
v. 5 means “illumination”; and thus we have:
. . . as his holy apostles and prophets and saints have been
illuminated . . . .
What more is necessary to be said about such distortion,
unless to ask that if God meant to say that “it has now been
revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets,” how should
He have worded it to convey that fact?
Observe also this illogical conclusion:
1
Paul was the first, or the only, one to receive a revelation
of the mystery;
2. The body of Christ could not exist before the revelation
about it was given;
3. Therefore the body of Christ could not have been formed
at Pentecost.
Even supposing point one is true, which it is not, there is no
proof that point two is true. Point three depends on point
two being true. It is the exigency of a humanly devised
system that asserts point two is true. The fact is that the
body of Christ was formed at Pentecost, and God meanwhile
exposed the state of the Jews, and then revealed the mystery.
The article is titled “Are We Ultra-Dispensationalists?”
and I suppose supporters of the writer’s views are supposed
to think that they are the true dispensationalists. I have long
thought that the word “ultradispensationalist” is inadequate;
though, however long, it has the advantage of being one
word. The prefix “ultra” means “beyond the range or limits
of” or “beyond what is normal.” It is distorted Scofieldian
dispensationalism and “ultradispensational” in that sense
There is at work, however, that which is seriously
defective concerning salvation and the gospel. Listen to this
from P. M. Sadler:
A new set of terms are set forth in salvation. Paul is the
first to proclaim the good news of Calvary, how that Christ
died for our sins and rose again. In Paul’s gospel alone,
sinners are saved by grace through faith apart from the
works of repentance and the law (Rom. 4:5; 1 Cor. 15:3,
4; Eph. 2:8, 9). 182
The concatenation of ever so many Scripture references will
not produce a statement that Paul was the first to proclaim
that Christ died for our sins and rose again. At best, it is an
argument based on silence. Scripture says:
How shall we escape if we have been negligent of so great
182. “Characteristics of the Mystery,” The Berean Searchlight, April, 1992,
p. 48.
163
salvation, which having had its commencement in being
spoken [of] by the Lord {see John’s gospel}, has been
confirmed to us by those who have heard . . . (Heb. 2:3).
P. M. Sadler’s statement, in effect, means that our Lord
taught that, what is here called “so great salvation,” is
salvation by repentance and the law; and it follows that so
did the twelve apostles preach that in the early part of Acts.
This is more than derangement; it is perversion! I say it is
“perversion” because of the pretension that this is advanced
dispensational truth. It is a slur, if not worse, on the work
of Christ which takes in every believer from Adam on. No
man was ever saved but by grace. J. N. Darby, responding
to the postmillennialist, David Brown, wrote:
From Adam to the end of time no one was or will be saved
but by the redemption and the work of the Spirit. 183
The notion that “dispensationalism” teaches more than one
way of salvation is merely cheap polemics, though of course
there are “dispensationalist” who do so. I add here that
antidispensationalists might think about O. T. Allis, who,
having just quoted Heb. 10:4, denounced the thought that
the sacrifices of Ezek. 40-48 are memorial:
There is not the slightest hint in Ezekiel’s description of
these sacrifices that they will be simply memorial. They
must be expiatory in exactly the same sense as the sacrifices
described in Leviticus were expiatory. 184
The sacrifices were not expiatory. The work of Christ, of
which they are a type, is expiatory. The O. T. sacrifices
were typical, looking forward; those in the millennium will
be memorial. The Melchizedek priest will be on His throne
(Zech. 6:13) and the sacrifices take their character from the
Melchizedek order (founded on the finished work of Christ),
not the Aaronic order (which looked forward). But this
instructive subject is not ours here.
History is Distorted Also
C. R. Stam wrote:
Later Mr. John N. Darby and Dr. C. I. Scofield were
raised up to recover “that blessed hope” and related truths
. . . This writer well remembers the days when the “DarbyScofield Movement” had gotten under way . . . .” 185
That statement is a myth. Next, in a short article, “The
Recovery of Grace Truth,” P. Sadler (who seems now to
have taken C. R. Stam’s place) wrote about Paul, Luther and
the Huguenots and then said:
These were followed by devout men of God like J. N.
Darby who recovered the truth of the premillennial rapture.
C. I. Scofield built upon this by uncovering the
dispensational approach to Scripture. Then God raised up
185. The Berean Searchlight, Jan. 1988, p. 301.
164
Pastor J. C. O’Hair who took a giant step in teaching us
how to rightly divide the Word of Truth. He showed us
that there is a difference between Prophecy and the
Mystery. He was followed by Pastors Stam, Baker, Elifson
and others who were used of the Lord to bring order out of
chaos.
Pastor Stam was largely responsible for
systematically putting the message together and working out
many of the problem areas. 186
In the Jan. 1991 issue of the Berean Searchlight, p. 295, P.
M. Sadler wrote:
The Huguenots were followed by devout men of God like
J. N. Darby who as we have said, recovered the truth of the
pretribulation Rapture. C. I. Scofield built upon this by
uncovering the dispensational approach to the Scriptures.
Later, God raised up Pastor J. C. O’Hair who took a giant
step in teaching men how to rightly divide the Word of
Truth. 187 He was instrumental in showing the Church the
great distinction between Prophecy and the Mystery. 188
186. The Berean Searchlight, May, 1989, p. 90.
187. It appears to me that J. C. O’Hair fell into this erroneous system by the
way he tried to refute Pentecostalism. C. R. Stam (The Berean Searchlight,
Jan. 1988, p. 293), says:
It was in a hotel in Indianapolis that Pastor J. C. O’Hair came to
see that water baptism has no place in God’s program for the
Church, the body of Christ.
He had been invited to help an Indianapolis pastor whose
congregation had been invaded by Pentecostalist teachings. Night
after night he spelled out the difference between our Lord’s “great
commission” to the twelve and his greater commission to the
Apostle Paul and to us. He showed from the book of Acts and the
epistles of Paul how the Pentecostal program, with its
supernatural sign gifts, had passed away.
One night a man came forward at the close of the service
and said, in effect: I am inclined to agree with all you have said,
but if your premise is correct, would you not have to eliminate
water baptism for today along with the sign gifts?” O’Hair
replied, “Of course not,” but the question kept robbing him of his
sleep that night, until he concluded that the man had been right,
that it was not Scripturally consistent, or logically possible to
acknowledge the passing of the sign gifts but to continue
practicing water baptism.
From that time he began to see the glory of the “one
baptism” into Christ and His Body, and with that, the glorious
truth of the mystery so dear to the heart of the Apostle Paul.
It seems to me that there is an implication that brethren like J. N. Darby, W.
Kelly, Ed. Dennett, R. Holden, Wm. Trotter, etc., etc., could not really have
had a correct grasp of the mystery. Of course, persons ignorant of their
writings might think that.
188. {[Here is what JND wrote in 1848 (Letters 1:131):
I distinguish entirely between the church and prophecy. I do not
believe the church is the subject, though it is the recipient and
depository of prophecy, as Abraham was of what should happen to
lot.
What is meant by the “difference between Prophecy and the Mystery” is
that J. C. O’Hair viewed the early chapters of Acts as fulfillment of
prophecy and so the mystery could not have begun until Paul ministered.
The fact is that JND was the one who brought out that the church was not
the subject of O. T. prophecy, as well as the character of the mystery.
Now, readers of JND know these things and realize how shallow the above
(continued...)
Today, we stand upon the shoulders of giants who
have retrieved for us the glorious truth of the pretribulation
Rapture. 189
J. N. Darby was used by God to recover the truth of the
pretribulation rapture to the Lord’s people
(posttribulationists also believe in a “premillennial rapture”)
in connection with, and at the same time as he understood,
the truth of the church, the body of Christ. These are
interconnected,190 though one might hold a pretribulation
rapture without that interconnection -- though that is an
aberration. He understood also the fall of the church (all in
1827). It was he who rightly understood dispensational
truth, the mystery, the place of prophecy, and much else.
C. I. Scofield was saved about 1879 and JND died in 1882.
As to a “Darby-Scofield Movement,” obviously the two men
had nothing to do with each other personally. C. I. Scofield
took from JND the teaching of the pretribulation rapture and
the distinction between Israel and the church. He omitted
(or never understood) the end of the standing of “the first
man” at Calvary, an error that opens the way for
“ultradispensationalism.” Moreover, omitted from CIS’s
dispensational scheme is the place of the government of God
in the development of His way’s in the earth. Without the
distinction between Israel and the church, and the truth of
the pretribulation rapture, both borrowed from JND, there
never would have been a Scofield dispensational scheme at
all, defective as it is. So while his scheme is dependent on
JND, it nevertheless hinders a proper understanding of
dispensational truth.
Above, we saw that P. M. Sadler claimed that “C. I.
Scofield built upon this by uncovering the dispensational
approach . . . .” Of course, this notion is quite absurd.
However, he sees CIS in the line of recovery of truth now
espoused by the Acts 9 position of “ultradispensationalism”
(omitting E. W. Bullinger). I suggest that what is
transpiring is this:
1. Failure to credit JND with the recovery of the truth of
the mystery.
2. Failure to credit JND with the unfolding of
dispensational truth;
a)
especially regarding the end of the testing of “the
first man,”
b) as well as the bearing of the development of the
ways of God in the earth in government.
3. Crediting C. I. Scofield with an advance upon JND,
whereas his system is disordered, not incorporating
(...continued)
citations are -- but there will be some who need this called to their
attention.}
189. The Berean Searchlight, Jan. 1991, p. 295.
190. I am aware of the view of Morgan Edwards. See Appendix 3.
points 2a and 2b; while also confusing ages and
dispensations, strictly speaking. Moreover, the omission
of point 2a opened the door for this ultradispensational
scheme).
regarding dispensational and other truth.
4. Bypassing E. W. Bullinger.
5. Crediting J. C. O’Hair (Acts 13 position) with finding
the key to deny that the body of Christ was formed at
Pentecost (Acts 2).
6. Crediting C. R. Stam with solving the problems left by
J. C. O’Hair and settling on the Acts 9 position.
7. And so, “Today, then, we stand upon the shoulders of
giants who have retrieved for us the glorious truth of the
pretribulation Rapture.”
In reality, what this represents is a systematic undermining
of truth recovered in the nineteenth century, while holding
some elements of that recovered truth in a distorted way.
Summary
Among the worst feature of the Acts 9/Acts 13 system is that
it lowers numbers of Christ’s glories and unduly exalt’s His
honored servant, Paul. Let us briefly review this.
1. The end of the standing and trial of the first man, in the
death of Christ, is, in effect, not acknowledged.
2. And so the fall of Israel occurring upon the end of the
standing and trial of the first man in the rejection and
death of Christ is also not acknowledged.
3. When Christ rose from among the dead, He thus became
the beginning of the new creation. He is robbed of this
by asserting that the new creation began with Paul’s
salvation.
4. Christ’s headship of the body resulted from a complex
of glories: His death, resurrection, exaltation and
consequent sending of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
The false system, in effect, makes Christ’s headship of
the body devolve upon Paul.
5. Christ Himself is the One Who is the baptizer into one
body. This system says that the Spirit is the baptizer
into one body.
6. This system means that those in the earliest part of the
Acts did not have the finished work of Christ for
salvation preached to them.
7. The mission for which Christ sent the Spirit is broken
into two incompatible programs which are viewed as
operating simultaneously for some time.
I trust that you will clearly see that this system lowers
Christ’s glories. This system is not of God, Who is not the
author of confusion. It is a confusion pretending to rightly
divide the Word of God, whereas it is severely retrograde
165
166
167
Part 4
Does Acts Show that
the Church Fulfills
the OT Prophecies
of the Kingdom?
The Kingdomization of the
Church by Antidispensationalists
It is intended in Part 4 to examine a number of passages in
Acts where antidispensationalists claim that the church is the
fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the
kingdom. Such a notion, we have seen, is contrary to Rom.
16:25, 26, Eph. 3:9, and Col. 1:26. And, of course, the Jews
had to expect a temporal kingdom and so the godly remnant
expected a temporal kingdom as did John the Baptist; as did
our Lord, who confirmed the expectation of the kingdom.
But the kingdom was presented as embodied in the meek and
lowly One Who was rejected and so the kingdom is
“postponed.” Of course, God never purposed to inaugurate
the kingdom at that point. Christ must die and God be
glorified in it; and redemption wrought. Thus, the kingdom
was presented in such a way so as to test the state of the
people and show the ruin of man. Then a heavenly
parenthesis was introduced which occupies the time between
Pentecost and the rapture.
The objective of the spiritualizers of the Old Testament
prophecies concerning the kingdom is to show that the reign
of the Messiah was inaugurated at Pentecost. 1 Some have
thought that the book of Acts presents clear proof of this.
O. T. Allis concluded:
The verdict of the Book of Acts on the question, whether
the Church, the founding of which it describes so
graphically, was foretold by the prophets seems to be so
1. See, for example, O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945, p. 136.
clear and unmistakable that we might rest our case after
citing its testimony. But it may be well to show that the
testimony of Acts is fully confirmed by the use made of
the Old Testament in other books of the New Testament.2
The Kingdomization of the Church
By Covenant Pretribulationists
It should be expected that the self-styled, self-congratulating
“Progressive Dispensationalists,” at this stage in their
theological approach to covenant posttribulationists, would
join with those, like the amillennialist, O. T. Allis, and
others who embrace covenant theology, in making the church
to be the kingdom; i.e., the notion that the reign of Messiah
was inaugurated at Pentecost. While allowing for a future
kingdom (as do covenant posttribulationists), the Covenant
Pretribulationists regard the present as a phase of the Davidic
kingdom. Briefly stated, the system is this:
All of the language describing the church in the New
Testament is either directly drawn from or is compatible
with the genres of covenant promise and the Messianic
kingdom. 3
Being a Dispensation of the kingdom, the church
corresponds to the mystery form of the kingdom which
Jesus revealed in the parables of Matt. 13. 4
The identity of the church as a present reality of the
coming eschatological kingdom receives further
2. Ibid., p. 134.
Wheaton: Victor Books, p. 260 (1993).
4. Ibid., p. 262.
168
Part 4: Does . . . the Church Fulfil the O.T. Prophecies?
explanation in Ephesians. 5
The Church as a Present Revelation of the Kingdom.
6
The emphasis is mine and those emphasized words are
classical “weasel words.” If they think that they cannot
produce Scripture that something is Davidic, then they can
claim that it “is compatible with” -- and, behold, there is their
theological demonstration! Such is theology. Thus the truth
concerning Christ’s headship of the body and the Christian’s
heavenly position and eternal portion is removed by this
system. For example, our being seated in the heavenlies in
Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6) is not compatible with covenant
promise. This system undermines what Christianity is and
that our blessings are in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph. 1:3).
It thus directly lowers Christ’s place, limiting all his present
actings to a Davidic character. The fact is that David’s great
Son is also David’s Lord. This system will not have it that
our Lord is presently acting above what is Davidic.
Indeed, the designation that the Lord took and often used,
consequent upon it being manifested in Israel that they would
not have Him, namely, “the Son of man,” is a title that is of
vastly wider bearing than that of “the Son of David.” This
system has subsumed some things that result from our Lord’s
place as the Son of man under their Davidic system -changing thereby the full bearing of those things -- and
vitiating and corrupting others. The truth is the opposite,
namely, that His title as the Son of David will have its
expression under the immense range and bearing of His title
as the Son of man. A few things regarding this will be pointed
out in Chapter 4.3, where we will consider the claim that
Christ is on David’s throne now.
If Ephesians can be so distorted, what must the book of
Acts suffer at their hands? Just as O. T. Allis spoke of “The
verdict of the book of Acts on the question . . .,” so Kenneth
L. Barker, after citing alleged examples from Acts that he
thinks indicate the present Davidic phase of the Kingdom,
wrote:
Additional examples could be given, but these suffice to
validate the principle of progressive fulfilment in
understanding and explicating the phenomena of biblical
prophecy. 7
Thus we may expect them to say that Christ is on David’s
throne now (Acts 2:30-36) and that the fallen tabernacle of
David (Acts 15) is now rebuilt, etc., just as the
antidispensationalist have insisted. Interestingly, by refuting
the claim of O. T. Allis, above, in effect the Covenant
Pretribulationists will also be answered.
*****
Let us now examine the relevant passages in the Acts.
5. Ibid., p. 258.
6. Ibid., p. 256.
7. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel
and the Church, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 327 (1992).
Chapter 4.1: Acts 1:3-9: Is it at This Time?
169
Chapter 4.1
Acts 1:3-9:
Is it at This Time?
. . . to whom also he presented himself living, after he had
suffered, with many proofs; being seen forty days, and
speaking of the things which concern the kingdom of God;
and, being assembled with [them], commanded them not
to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the
Father, which [said he] ye have heard of me. For John
indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Spirit after not now many days.
They therefore, being come together, asked him
saying, Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the
kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not yours
to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in
his own authority; but ye will receive power, the Holy
Spirit having come upon you, and ye shall be my
witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and
Samaria, and to the end of the earth. And having said
these things he was taken up, they beholding [him], and a
cloud received him out of their sight (Acts 1:3-9).
We have already partially considered this passage in Chapter
1.4. The Lord said these words in vv. 6-8 on the occasion of
His being taken up out of their sight. He said these words to the
Apostles, as vv. 1, 2 show. The question asked by the Apostles
in verse 6 is about the literal 8 kingdom they and the others of
the remnant expected, which expectation the Lord had
confirmed.
We never read that our Lord told His disciples
that there would be no such kingdom for Israel. Nor did He
state that in this passage. The Apostles wanted to know if the
time had now come for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.
The kingdom had been taken away, in 605 B. C., through
Nebuchadnezzar. It was at that point in time when the “times
of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), depicted by the image of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2), began. The nation, as such,
was declared to be Lo-Ammi (not my people; Hos. 1:9). The
restoration of the kingdom refers to the transference of power
back to Israel, under the reign of Messiah (cp. Acts 3:21).
We noted elsewhere that the death of our Lord was not only
for the gathering together into one the children of God that were
scattered abroad, but also for the nation of Israel (John 11:51,
52). He was “a minister of [the] circumcision for [the] truth of
God, to confirm the promises of the fathers . . .” (Rom. 15:8).
All Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26) and that nation will be
born in a day (Isa. 66:8), all being righteous (Isa. 60:21) the
8. I do not imply by the word “literal” that there is nothing of a spiritual
character in the kingdom when all Israel shall be saved and the knowledge
of Jehovah shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
rebels all having been purged (Ezek. 20). To Israel belongs a
future, national adoption (Rom. 9:4) and they will then be
pronounced to be Ammi (Hos. 1:10, 11; 2:1; My people).
They will enjoy the new covenant (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8). That
coming kingdom will not be unspiritual for Israel.
In Acts 1:3 we see that the Lord had spoken to the
Apostles, during 40 days, concerning the kingdom of God. He
did not tell them that there was to be not national future for
Israel. If He did, produce the Scripture that says so! He could
not deny what the prophets had said. And this led to the
question the Apostles asked in v. 6.
Some opposers of the thought of a future, national kingdom
for Israel might suggest that the disciples, in v. 6, did not refer
to such a kingdom. One postmillennialist suggests that they were
speaking of a present kingdom:
. . . merely asking the Lord, “Is it now time for Israel to
be converted to you and enter the kingdom, which you
have established?” This would fit well within the
semantic theological and psychological framework of the
episode.9
This is absurd and desperate spiritual alchemy. A different use
of that technique is given by the amillennialist, Simon
Kistemaker, who, astonishingly, says that even if the
explanation that the disciples meant a political kingdom was the
correct explanation:
. . . if we interpret the text to mean the restoration of
spiritual Israel . . . Conclusively, then, . . . it is possible
and even probable to give a spiritual interpretation of the
Apostles’ question. 10
If that will not do, theology can supply other alternatives.
However, the amillennialist, O. T. Allis acknowledges:
That it would be an Israelitish kingdom the disciples
apparently still regarded as self-evident. 11
The fact is that it is self-evident, and certainly to us also when
Rom. 16:25, 26, Eph. 3:8-11, Col. 1:24-26 as well as the
prophets are believed -- instead of being explained away as
F. F. Bruce did:
9. Bahnsen, G. L., and Gentry, Jr. K. L., House Divided, The Break-up of
Dispensational Theology, Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, p. 172,
1989.
10. Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 52, (1990).
170
This hope of an earthly and national kingdom (Mk. 10:3537; Lk. 1:68-75) was recast after Pentecost as the
proclamation of the spiritual kingdom of God . . . . 12
Of course, this alleged recasting is a figment of spiritual
alchemy, as we shall see, for the preaching after Pentecost
reaffirmed the expectation of the future kingdom for Israel,
particularly during the period up to the stoning of Steven; i.e.,
during the period of God’s exposure of the state of Israel after
their rejection of the Lord -- until they sent Steven after the
Lord, now gone to the far country, with a message, as it were
(Acts 7:55-60; cp. Luke 19:14). If it is admitted that the
disciples did indeed refer to a national kingdom for Israel, v. 3
is compelled to mean, for example:
This, of course, could only mean that He was instructing
them concerning the work of the Kingdom in which they
were to serve Him as soon as they should receive power
through the coming of the Holy Spirit . . . . 13
The fact is that one decides what the content of the Lord’s
instruction concerning the kingdom of God (v. 3) was, based on
whether or not he thinks that the church fulfills the Old
Testament prophecies of the kingdom. One thing certain from
the question in v. 6 is that if the Lord had been telling them
there would be no such national kingdom for Israel, they did not
understand, or else did not believe, Him. There is no reason
why He could not have spoken of both the moral aspects of the
kingdom and of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, and
there we leave it.
At any rate, the Lord did not answer the question of v. 6,
by saying ‘I have told you that there will be no such kingdom,’
nor could He, for the prophets had prophesied of it. O. T.
Allis, in his polemic against dispensational truth, admitted this:
And a Jew had to understand the OT prophecies that way.
Moreover, those prophecies make a coherent whole, literally
understood (with all due allowance for figures of speech and
symbols). The Lord did not tell them that there would be no
such kingdom, but that it was not for them to know “the times
and seasons.” But in v. 3 He told them that they would be
baptized in “the Holy Spirit after now not many days.” If we
do not have an agenda, the distinction between the two subjects
is quite clear. The Lord’s directing their thoughts to “after now
not many days” regards a different subject than the one meant
by “It is not yours to know times or seasons . . . .” Verse 3
speaks of Pentecost and times and seasons refers to the events
of Daniel’s 70th week and what follows.
“Times” (chronos) refers to duration or date of occurrence
chronologically, while “seasons” (kairos) refers to
characteristics of the chronological periods. These two words
apply to the same events, not to two differing periods. The
12. The Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 102 (1990, third
ed.).
13. P. Mauro, The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 108.
Covenant Pretribulationist, Darrell Bock, claims that chronos
refers to the future and kairos applies at Pentecost. But that
would mean, contradicting the Lord’s words (“it is not for you
to know the chronos or the kairos,”) that they would, in fact,
know the kairos. The theological figment is part of, and
illustrative of, his agenda to have the present be an aspect of the
Davidic kingdom -- which his system substitutes for the
heavenly position and character of the church. This is called
“Progressive Dispensationalism.” 15
The Lord’s answer is instructive for us to consider in
connection with 1 Thess. 5:1 where we also find reference to
times and seasons. 16 In order to help us understand the bearing
of this, part of a footnote to 1 Cor. 8:1 in J. N. Darby’s
translation is quoted:
Two Greek words are used for ‘to know’ in the New
Testament -- ginosko and oida. The former signifies
objective knowledge, what a man has learned or
acquired. The English expression ‘being acquainted
with’ perhaps conveys the meaning. Oida conveys the
thought of what is inward, the inward consciousness of
the mind . . . .
Acts 1:7 reads “It is not yours to know (ginosko) times or
seasons.” Now, this cannot contradict 1 Thess. 5:1, 2. The
meaning of Acts 1:7 is that times and seasons were not to be
their portion to experience. The times and seasons, “the defined
periods of which prophecy speaks” (W. Kelly), are not
connected with the rapture. Thus we do not know them in the
sense of becoming objectively acquainted with them by
experiencing them. If the disciples had entered into the times
and the seasons, they would surely become objectively
acquainted with them. The disciples, in accordance with the
expectation of the remnant, had asked, “Is it at this time that
thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” The expectation was
right, the time was wrong, and, furthermore, times and seasons
were not to be any Christian’s lot. Christianity is not part of the
times and seasons.
All of this does not imply necessary ignorance on the part
of Christians concerning the subject of times and seasons. “Ye
know (oida) perfectly well yourselves, that the day of [the] Lord
so comes as a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2). “This great
and solemn truth was part of their inward conscious assurance”
(W. Kelly).
While it is true that the disciples, as seen in Acts 1, were
still occupied with the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, and
also Matthias was chosen as the twelfth apostle by the Old
Testament method of lots, the fact remains that in Acts 1:6-8,
the Lord tells them that times and seasons are not their portion
to know, in the sense of experiencing them.
15. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds., A Case for
Premillennialism, A New Consensus, Chicago: Moody, p. 188, note 11
(1992).
16. 1 Thess. 5:1 connects directly with 1 Thess. 4:14. 1 Thess. 4:15-18 is
parenthetical in explanation of how those now dead in Christ can come
with Him when He appears -- by prior rapture.
Chapter 4.2: Acts 2:16-21: Joel’s Prophecy
171
Chapter 4.2
Acts 2:16-21:
Joel’s Prophecy
Quotations
There are two general ways in which OT Scriptures are
quoted in the NT 17
1. They are quoted to show a fulfillment, as often in
Matthew’s gospel; and Acts 1:16 is an example.
2. They are quoted to:
a) illustrate a point;
b) make an application;
c) show that something is not inconsistent with the
ways of God.
Therefore, something may fall within the use of a prophecy
but not be its fulfillment. Acts 2:17-21 and Acts 15:14-18 are
examples of #2. Sometimes such quotations are very full and
contain more than what refers to the point under
consideration, thus showing that the fulfillment has not
occurred. The fulfillment is millennial, but something in #2
is applicable meanwhile.
The Character of What Happened
W. Kelly remarked:
. . . the apostle Peter quotes {from Joel} to show that the
immense blessing of that day was in accordance with the
highest favor promised for the kingdom . . . But, observe,
the apostle did not affirm that this scripture was fulfilled.
He says, “It is that thing which was spoken by the prophet
Joel”; and so it is. What was promised was the
outpouring of the Holy Ghost. Without saying that the
present fact was the fulfillment of the prophecy (which
men have assumed, to the great misunderstanding of
scripture and lowering of Christianity), he showed that it
was of that nature, and such therefore as to be vindicated
by the prophecy before their conscience; but the apostle’s
language is guarded, while the commentators are not.
They go to far. We do well always to hold fast to
scripture.
As to the promise that the Spirit should be poured
17. See W. Kelly, An Exposition of the Book of Isaiah, pp. 54-58, for an
examination of how Isaiah is quoted.
upon “all flesh,” we must bear in mind that “all flesh” is
in contrast with restriction to the Jew. This is another
feature which made the Pentecostal gift so admirably
illustrate the scripture. For the patent fact that God
caused those who received the Holy Ghost to speak in
different languages distributed over the Gentile world, not
causing all the converts to speak the Jewish language (a
poor thing if true, which it is not, but a mere dream of
superficial paradox), but causing the jews gathered from
their dispersion among all nations to speak the tongues of
the Gentiles was a magnificent witness to the grace that
was going out to the Gentiles to meet them where they
were. The judgment of God had inflicted these various
tongues upon them, and completely broken up the
ambitious project of joining together to establish a unity
of there own through the tower of Babel. But the grace of
God went out exactly where His judgment had placed
them. 18
Acts 2:17-21 Is Future
And it shall be in the last days, saith God, [that] I will
pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and
your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall
see visions, and your elders will dream with dreams;
yea, even upon my bondmen and upon my bondwomen
in those days will I pour out of my Spirit, and they shall
prophesy. And I will give wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor
of smoke: the sun shall be changed to darkness and the
moon to blood, before the great and gloriously appearing
day of [the] Lord come (Acts 2:17-21).
We previously sought to show the misuse made of this
passage by so-called Acts 9/13 “ultradispensationalists.” We
saw that the passage is millennial and that Peter showed that
what had happened was not inconsistent (or absurd) with the
ways of God. That is, Joel’s prophecy was not fulfilled at
Pentecost though the effusion of the Spirit (see v. 17) and the
calling on the name of the Lord (see v. 21) fell within the
scope of Joel’s prophecy. Moreover, the position taken here
is that there was not even a partial fulfillment. The effusion
18. Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Minor Prophets, London:
Broom, p. 95 (1874).
172
tongues in Old Testament phraseology . . . 21
of the Spirit at Pentecost was not upon all flesh, as Joel’s
prophecy says it will be.
THE LAST DAYS
SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW
It is claimed that since Joel said “and it shall come to pass
afterward” and Peter said, “and in the last days,” Peter thus
claimed that the listeners were living in the last days. 19
Peter made no such claim. His “last days” does not refer to
the last days in which we now live. While Peter was
speaking, the last days of the church were not yet present.
The last days, as regards the church as viewed in testimony
on earth, began when the church fell into ruin -- and did so
before the apostles were all gone. When Paul wrote of the
characteristics and persons of the last days, he told Timothy
to turn away from such (2 Tim. 3:1). 2 Timothy contains
instruction for conduct in the last days, which had arrived
before the writing of the book. Peter warned of them (2 Pet.
3:3); and John pronounced that it was “the last hour” ( 1
John 2:8). The church was fallen, ruined, as the vessel of
testimony seen in responsibility on earth. The writing of the
book of Revelation is the standing witness to this fact,
because prophecy is occasioned by failure -- and this was the
failure, the ruin, of the church on earth, seen in
responsibility. 20
Peter says, “and I will give wonders in the heaven above and
signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of
smoke: the sun shall be changed to darkness and the moon
to blood before the great and glorious appearing day of [the]
Lord shall come” (Acts 1:19, 20).
The last days, or “end of the days” (Isa. 2:2; Jer. 23:20;
Hos. 3:4, 5; Micah 4:1) of which the O. T. Prophets spoke
has the coming Kingdom in view. Recall that “this age” in
the N. T. means the age which began with the introduction
of the law. Christianity is not an age. The “end of the
days” of the prophets means the closing era of “this age” in
view of the establishment of the Kingdom under Messiah.
Joel, says “afterwards,” which Peter refers to as the “last
days.”
Heb. 1:1, 2 -- “at the end of these days” -- has nothing
to do with the last days as related to the church seen in ruin
concerning responsibility on earth. J. N. Darby, in a
footnote, wrote:
See Isa. 2:2. A Hebrew expression, as several here, for the
end of the period of law, when Messiah was to be
introduced.
PROPHECY, VISIONS, AND DREAMS
Joel had said that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy
and your young men shall see visions, and your elders shall
dream with dreams” (Acts 2:17). Obviously this did not
happen at Pentecost but if Joel spoke of the formation of the
Church, why, it simply must have happened. So, to
circumvent the problem an objector said:
Since tongues could be broadly described as a kind of
prophecy, this passage provided the nearest equivalent to
19. I. H Marshall, Acts, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 73, 1983.
20. See my The Ruin of the Church, Eldership and Ministry of the Word by
Gift.
The signs are said to be, “probably the gift of tongues
and the various healing miracles which are shortly to be
recorded.” 22 Thus it is implicitly admitted that healing
miracles did not occur at Pentecost -- so how was Joel’s
prophecy fulfilled at Pentecost? And then we are treated, as
well we might be, to silence concerning the blood, fire, etc.
WONDERS IN THE HEAVEN ABOVE
How can this be handled?
If we do not accept that the reference is to the cosmic
signs which accompanied the crucifixion (Luke 23:44f.),
then Peter is looking forward to the signs which will
herald the end of the world . . . to the ‘end’ of the last
days, rather than to their ‘beginning’ which is just taking
place. 23
Anything, so long as the theory that the church fulfills the
Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom is
maintained. How, for either suggestion, was Joel’s prophecy
fulfilled at Pentecost? Regarding Luke 23:44ff:
1.
This was before Pentecost.
2.
If Joel is to be understood literally regarding the sun
being turned to darkness, why was not the moon turned
to blood? 24
Joel’s prophecy is not about the darkening of the sun when
our Lord suffered at Calvary. That darkness was literal, of
course. Joel’s prophecy of the moon turning to blood,
however, is symbolic. The symbols of sun, moon and stars
were present in Joseph’s dream where they meant Jacob, his
wife and his sons, respectively. These symbols are used of
powers: supreme, derivative and lesser, respectively. These
symbols are repeatedly associated with the day of the Lord
(Isa. 13:9-11; Ezek. 32:7, 8; Joel 2:10 & 3:15). Our Lord
used these symbols also (Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24, 25) as
did John (Rev. 6:12; 8:12 -- cp 12:1). But I do not mean to
say that there shall be no actual signs in the heavens.
21. Ibid., p. 73.
22. Ibid., p. 74.
23. Ibid., p. 74.
24. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 69, l955,
says “. . . the paschal full moon may well have appeared blood-red in the sky
in consequence of that preternatural gloom.” That refers to an event before
Pentecost and in any event is certainly outside the words “this is that.” At
Calvary there was a literal darkness -- but concerning the moon, we are
offered a “may well be” and an appearance of a blood-red moon.
This Is That
The thrust of the quotation, its bearing on what was
transpiring, is the pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh
(v. 17) and that whoever calls on the name of the Lord
would be saved (v. 21). Joel is quoted for the principle of
these two things and they were applied on this occasion.
What was happening had that character. Joel was selected
for quotation by the guidance of the omniscient Spirit of God
because Joel spoke of “all flesh”;
and this passage
regarding the pouring out of the Spirit (rather than the
others) is in view of the work that was going to be carried
on among the Gentiles, for whosever calls on the name of
the Lord would be saved. It is not the fulfillment, which
awaits the Kingdom, but has application, in principle,
meanwhile.
There are antidispensationalists who assert that this
phrase means that Pentecost fulfilled Joel’s prophecy. 25 This
leads to quite a working of the theological imagination. The
truth is that the Spirit came at Pentecost in fulfillment of the
promise of the Father (Luke 24:49; John 14:26). The Spirit
was not given until the Lord Jesus was glorified (John 7:39).
And so, having been exalted, Christ received from the
Father the Spirit and then Christ poured Him out (Acts 2:32,
33). Thus the Spirit we have received is not called the Holy
Spirit of Joel’s prophecy, but the Holy Spirit of promise
(Eph. 1:13). He is the promise of the Father and of the Son
(not of Jehovah) in connection with the place that we have
before the Father, in the Son.
Another alternative is to put part of the prophecy off
for, now, more than 1900 years. So the position taken by
the editor of the Evangelical Quarterly, I. H. Marshall, is
that “Peter sees that it is beginning to be fulfilled in the
events of Pentecost.” 26 No wonder he did not comment on
the words “this is that which was spoken through Joel the
prophet.”
He has had opportunity to read other
amillennialists on this passage who have asserted that these
words mean ‘this is the fulfillment of that.’ But his view
means ‘this is a partial fulfillment of that,’ since part is to be
25. “Peter makes the Spirit’s manifestation the fulfillment of the Jewish
prophecy by Joel, . . . Pentecost was the fulfillment of their own
prophecies,” The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, vol. 4, p. 507, 1977. Another says, “Contrary to Peter’s
interpretation -- viz., that Pentecost fulfilled Joel’s prophecy . . .,” G. L.
Bahnson and K. L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided, Tyler: Institute for Christian
Economics, p. 75, note 30, 1989. A very strange thing appears in the
“dispensationalist” Dallas Seminary Faculty commentary, The Bible
Knowledge Commentary, Wheaton: Victor Books, p. 358, 1983: “This
clause does not mean, ‘This is like that’; it means Pentecost fulfilled what
Joel had described. However, the prophecies of Joel quoted in Acts 2:19-20
were not fulfilled. The implication is that the remainder would be fulfilled
if Israel would repent.” The last sentence is just imagination. Does this not
sound similar to the ‘ultradispensationalist’ view of Acts 2? And it violates
the fact that the church is not the subject of the OT prophecies.
26. I. H. Marshall, op. cit., p. 74.
173
fulfilled, he says, in the future. The truth is that the only
understanding of “this is that” that does justice to the
passage itself, and is also in keeping with the Scripture
statements that the mystery was “hidden throughout the ages
in God” (Eph. 3:9, and silence was kept about it (Rom.
16:25, 26), and that it was hidden from generations and ages
(Col. 1:26), is this: “this is that” means that this outpouring
of the Spirit has that character -- not that it is the fulfillment.
I have pointed out elsewhere that the objection to this,
namely, that the text does not say ‘this has that character’ is
countered by pointing out that the text does not say ‘this is
the fulfillment of that.’ Far worse is I. H. Marshall’s view,
which makes the words mean “this is a partial fulfillment of
that,” (or, “this is the beginning of the fulfillment of that”).
Peter showed his audience how the view that this was
necessarily drunkenness is false, since Joel had spoken of
something of a similar character. Thus, there was another,
the true, explanation. So at Pentecost, the effusion of the
Spirit fell within the bearing of this aspect of Joel’s
prophecy but did not fulfill it either fully or partially.
JOEL SAID, “UPON ALL FLESH.”
In Acts 2 the Spirit came upon Jews only. And so on an
‘antidispensational’ view of the passage, that fact would
require an antidispensationalist to say that this also was the
beginning of fulfillment, which view, of course, is taken. 27
It is interesting that the Spirit of God cited Joel in regard to
the pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh. Other references
to the effusion of the Spirit (Isa. 32:15; 44:3, 4; Ezek.
36:27; 37:14; 39:29; cp. Isa. 59:21; Zech. 12:10) refer
only to Israel. At Pentecost, the Spirit came only upon
Israelites, yet one of those texts that refer only to Israel was
not chosen by the Spirit for quotation through Peter.
Pentecost was not the fulfillment, either for Israel or for all
flesh. However, Joel’s prophecy may have been chosen by
the Spirit because the blessing was going to go beyond these
Jews, even to Gentiles whom God would save during the
present period.
Kenneth L. Barker applies to the words “this is that”
the notion of progressive fulfillment of prophecy, the
objective of this being to have OT prophecies partially
fulfilled now. Thus, he claims:
The latter expression certainly appears to be asserting that
“this” at least partially fulfills Joel’s words. Here I agree
with Carson: “This is not an identity statement, since the
antecedent of ‘this’ is the set of phenomena associated
with that first Christian Pentecost, not the prophecy itself.
The statement really means, ‘This fulfills what was
spoken by the prophet’ [D. A. Carson, Exegetical
27. F. F. Bruce, The Books of Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 68, 1955.
174
Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 61]. 28
Is it right, that when Joel says “upon all flesh” and at
Pentecost it was upon Jews only, to claim: “This fulfills
what was spoken by the prophet”? The “antecedent of ‘this’
is” the pouring out of the Spirit upon Jews only! I suggest
that Scripture is being forced, here, in deference to a
theological figment about “progressive fulfillment of
prophecy.” And do we not see here the commission of an
exegetical fallacy? Does upon all flesh = upon Jews only?
-- or is the fact rather that “this is that” means having that
character? It reminds me of the Arminian we noted that, in
effect, said impossible = almost impossible, and the loose
Christian who, in effect, said partaker = partial partaker.
Recall, also, that the Spirit did not cause Peter to use one of
the other Scriptures about the future effusion of the Spirit
that spoke only of the Jews, but selected the one in Joel
about all flesh -- as if to cut off this erroneous attempt.
notions characteristic of their approach to Scripture. It is
just such a way of distorting (I do not say intentionally)
Scripture that is required in order to support the idea that the
church is the spiritual Israel and that the church is a subject
of OT prophecy.
THE DAY OF THE LORD
The wonders and signs will occur “before the great and
gloriously appearing day of [the] Lord comes” (v. 20).
Though “before,” it is correct to say that the wonders and
signs just precede that day. We might pause to note that
those “dispensationalists” who say the day of the Lord is
inaugurated at the rapture are therefore incorrect. Such
signs will not precede the rapture. It is the appearing of the
Lord Jesus Christ in glory that ushers in the day of the Lord
(which includes the millennium and the dissolution of the
present heavens and earth) and the wonders and signs will
occur after the rapture.
CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD
“And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of
[the] Lord shall be saved” (v. 21). What a blessed fact,
cited again in Rom. 10:13. Peter quoted from Joel up to
this verse, which, while Joel has reference to the last days,
also has an application now. This he desired to bring before
his hearers so that they might repent and be saved. The
citation from Joel concerning the Spirit answered the charge
of drunkenness. The application of v. 21 would meet their
deep need. O. T. Allis remarked:
But the words themselves are clearly applicable to that
mystery church. . . . 29
Verse 21 is indeed applicable now. That fact, however,
does not prove that the church is the subject of prophecy.
Verse 21 illustrates how something can be “applicable”
without it being the fulfillment and without the mystery
being a subject of prophecy. Moreover, v. 21 applies to
individuals.
The notions of the antidispensationalists cited are
28. In Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and
the Church, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 326 (1992).
29. O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church., p. 135.
The Baptism in the Spirit;
Matt. 3:11 And Joel 2:28
16:7; 7:39; Acts 2:32, 33).
#
Some Covenant Pretribulationists hold that Joel’s prophecy
was fulfilled except for what is cited in Acts 2:19, 20. Thus,
there is a hiatus between vv. 18 an 20 It is claimed that
Matt. 3:11 refers to Joel’s prophecy and Matt. 3:11 was
fulfilled at Pentecost, at least the part referring to the
baptism in the Spirit. This is part of the agenda to have
presently a Davidic aspect of the kingdom. The conclusion
is:
The Spirit’s coming at Pentecost was nothing less than the
fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of the messianic
outpouring of the Spirit. 30
This, of course, isolates the pouring out of the Spirit in
Joel’s prophecy from the other OT Scriptures (Isa. 32:15;
44:3, 4; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; cp. Isa. 59:21; Zech.
12:10). If it be said that Joel 2:28 will have an application
in the future, note that that is merely a reversal of the fact;
namely, that the fulfillment is future but Peter referred to it
to show that what was happening is illustrated by it -- or not
inconsistent with it.
The kingdom spoken of by John (Matt. 3:2) was the
same kingdom to which the Apostles referred in Acts 1:6 -the kingdom under the reign of Messiah, predicted by the
prophets (the millennium). Consequent upon the sin against
the Holy Spirit being committed in Matt. 12 (signifying His
rejection), the Lord introduced the subject of a kingdom not
foreseen by the prophets, hence it is the kingdom in mystery
(Matt. 13). This is the form of the kingdom now and it has
no Davidic character. The Lord is on the Father’s throne
(Rev. 3:21). He will have His throne of glory later (cp.
Matt. 25:31). I suggest that just as Matt. 3:2 refers to the
predicted kingdom for Israel, so Matt. 3:11 refers to the
baptism in the Holy Spirit and in fire that is still future. One
refers to the future pouring out of the Spirit and the other to
the pouring out of judgment. The Pentecostal baptism in the
Spirit is not the fulfillment of Matt. 3:11 or of Joel 2:28.In
Acts 1:5, the Lord referred to John by way of contrast.
John’s baptism was with water. The baptism to occur not
many days after was spiritual in nature. There are three
considerations that show that Pentecost is not the fulfillment
of the O. T. Predictions of the outpouring of the spirit.
THE POSITION OF CHRIST WITH
RESPECT TO THE TWO BAPTISMS
Christ’s position is altogether different with respect to the
Pentecostal baptism in the Spirit and the future one.
#
The baptism in the Spirit at Pentecost require Christ’s
absence from earth and His presence in Heaven (John
30. Robert L. Saucy, The Case For Progressive Dispensationalism, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, p. 178 (1993).
175
Israel’s future baptism in the Spirit will occur after
Christ has come in glory and Israel has been regathered
(Ezek. 36:24-32) and the two houses, Israel and
Ephraim, have been reunited (Ezek. 37:11-14).31 The
feast of the blowing of Trumpets is typical of Israel’s
future regathering, which will take place on the first of
the month, namely the 1320th day from the middle of
Daniel’s 70th week. The fulfillment of the day of
atonement for Israel will be on the following 10th of the
month (cp. Lev. 23), namely, the 1330th day from the
middle of Daniel’s 70th week. 32 Perhaps on this day
(cp. Zech. 12:10-12) will occur the pouring out of the
Spirit on Israel (Isa. 32:15; 44:3). And Joel 2:28 says
it will come to pass “afterwards”; clearly, after the
regathering and unification of Israel. But Christ will
already have come in glory before that regathering.
Thus, his position with respect to the two cases is
entirely different. And these two positions relate to the
respective objectives.
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TWO BAPTISMS
In accordance with Christ’s two positions, noted above, there
are two objectives related to those positions.
#
The Pentecostal outpouring has in view the gathering
out of this world a people for heaven, persons united in
one body to the Head in heaven. It is connected with
the inauguration of the church.
#
The future pouring out is for the workings of God’s
purpose and grace regarding the earthly sphere where
Messiah’s reign will be inaugurated. It is connected
with the inauguration of the Kingdom.
In the millennium, Christ will head up both the heavenly and
the earthly (Eph. 3:10).
THE CHARACTER OF THE TWO BAPTISMS
Just as the positions of Christ, and the objectives, in the two
cases differ, so the character differs.
#
The Pentecostal baptism in the Spirit comes from the
Father (John 14:16) and the Son (John 16:8),
consequent upon His glorification in heaven (John 7:39;
Acts 2:32, 33).
#
In the future it is from Jehovah. Of course the Father,
Son and Spirit are Jehovah, but in that day God will
31. Since the future pouring out of the Spirit is after the regathering of Israel,
which regathering occurs after the Lord’s appearing in glory (i.e., after the
introduction of the day of the Lord); and since the occurrences noted in Acts
2:19, 20 occur before the introduction of the day of the Lord; it is evident
that what is described in Acts 2:19, 20 will occur before what is described in
Acts 2:17, 18.
32. The 1335th day brings in the blessedness (Dan. 12). It is the 15th day
of the month, the feast of booths -- when the millennial blessedness is fully
realized under Messiah.
176
stand in relationship to the earth in a character suitable
to his purpose and grace regarding the earthly sphere, in
which His ways in government are displayed as well as
His grace.
The Baptism in the Spirit
Is Not Continuous
There could be no subsequent baptism in the Spirit for the
body of Christ because that formed the body; and the body is
only formed once. Somewhere J. N. Darby remarked:
As to 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, it is aorist . . . and
therefore says nothing of continuity . . . .
The Spirit is characterized in Eph 1:13 as the Holy Spirit of
promise. That characterization accords with the fact that the
Spirit’s coming resulted from the promise of the Father (John
14:16, 26; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4). The coming of the Spirit
required Christ’s absence here (John 16:8) and He said that
He (Christ) would send the promise of the Father (Luke
24:49). When glorified, He received of the Father the
promise of the Holy Spirit and then He poured out the Spirit
(Acts 2:32, 33). This is a once-for-all act -- from the Head in
heaven -- forming the body (1 Cor. 12:13). We are added to
that once-for-all formed body when we are sealed with that
same Holy Spirit of promise. Thus, we are brought into the
good of 1 Cor. 12:13. There are no continuous baptisms in
the Spirit. It was a corporate thing, not an individual thing.
This is not a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.
“And such as the heavenly [one], such also the heavenly
[ones]” (1 Cor. 15:48). The body is heavenly, as is the Head
in heaven to which that body is united by the Holy Spirit of
promise -- Covenant Pretribulationists notwithstanding!
The attempt to make the entire quotation from Joel be
fulfilled certainly leads to ludicrous explanations -- in spite of
being put forth with theological seriousness. It is a question,
however, whether or not such a view is more consistent than
treating the phrase “this is that” as if it said “this is partially
that.” But this is how some take it, confining the phrase’s
application to the pouring out of the Spirit and asserting it
means ‘this fulfils what the prophet said.’ That view is
favored by the Covenant Pretribulationists.
The Nation of Israel And
The Holy Spirit Put in Them
The baptism in the spirit at Pentecost formed the body of
Christ (1 cor. 12:13) united to the Head in heaven (Eph.
4:15), forming what 1 Cor. 12:12 calls “the Christ.” This
indicates the Head and the members seen in union.33 This “the
Christ” was not spoken of in the OT, and was formed when
the Spirit came (John 15:16; 16:13) in the special capacity
consequent upon the Lord’s taking His place above (John
7:39; Acts 2:32, 33). He will be taken out of the way
(2 Thess 2, i.e., the restrainer) in connection with that special
capacity for which He came, when the last member is added
to that body. The rapture will take place. He indwells the
believer (1 Cor. 6:19) and the church (1 Cor. 3:17) but does
so in connection with Christ’s present position above. Thus,
the baptism in the Spirit is a heavenly thing, an action in
connection with the absence of the Lord from earth, while
concealed in heaven.
In Ezek. 36:25-27 we read: “I will put my Spirit within
you.” That will not be, as now, to join them into one body
to the Head in Heaven, which required the Lord’s absence
from earth. It will occur consequent on His appearing in
glory and presence on earth. It is for their establishment in
national unity, on earth, composed of twelve tribes, but with
each Israelite saved (Rom. 11:26), for they have a national
adoption (Rom. 9:3-5).
Their cleansing by the sprinkling of clean water reminds
us of Num. 19:17-19. The new birth is spoken of here as the
giving of a new heart and spirit. No doubt the Lord Jesus had
in mind texts such as this when he spoke to Nicodemus, who
He rebuked as “the teacher of Israel” (John 3:10) for not
knowing that such a thing was necessary. The new birth is
necessary for the blessings of Israel, under Messiah, in the
millennium. The Lord called what He said to Nicodemus
“earthly things” (John 3:12), distinguishing that from
“heavenly things.” All of the children of God from Adam
onward have experienced the new birth. While a Christian does
also, that is not what constitutes the spiritual blessings in the
heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:3; 2:6; etc.), which are
heavenly things.
The blessing of Israel under the new covenant (Jer.
31:31; Heb. 8) is very much greater than OT Israel had,
thought it is earthly blessing. The idea of millennial blessing
is not, as alleged by antidispensationalists, a downward step
from the church’s blessing. The objection betrays that the
church is, in effect, viewed as an earthly thing. See that the
church is heavenly, that “this age” is the age begun with the
law; see that the church is not an age, is not part of the
development of God’s ways in government in the earth; see
where God says it is (Eph. 1:3; 2:6; etc.); and it becomes
plain in viewing the development of God’s ways in
government in the earth that the millennium is a immense
upward step for the saints whose portion is in the earth.
33. What think you; does this union make the Head earthly, or does it make
the members heavenly?
Chapter 4.3: Acts 2:30-36: Christ’s and David’s Throne
177
Chapter 4.3
Acts 2:30-36:
Is Christ on David’s Throne Now?
Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn to him with an oath, of the fruit of his loins to set
upon his throne; he, seeing [it] before, spoke concerning
the resurrection of the Christ, that neither has he been left
in hades nor his flesh seen corruption. This Jesus has God
raised up, whereof all we are witnesses. Having therefore
been exalted by the right hand of God, and having
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he
has poured
out this which ye behold and hear. For David has not
ascended into the heavens, but he says himself, The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I have put
thine enemies [to be] the footstool of thy feet. Let the
whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God
has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both
Lord and Christ (Acts 2:30-36).
The Promise of The Spirit
His message was not those things but that the very Jesus
that had just been slain was raised from the dead by God.
The OT showed that the Messiah would die and be raised.
He cited words from David that could not be true of David,
but true of Messiah. His soul was not left in hades nor did
his flesh see corruption. This meant resurrection. This was
true of One Who was to fulfil the promise to David that of
the fruit of his loins, one would sit on David’s throne. And
there He sits awaiting the time when God makes Christ’s
enemies His footstool (Psa. 110:1), made now both Lord and
Christ.
Opposers would like to connect v. 33 with the OT prophecies
of the effusion of the Spirit 34 as if this was a fulfillment.
One hardly has to look there. Luke 24:49 and John 14:26
are near at hand. And when we are sealed with the Spirit
Who formed that body once-for-all formed at Pentecost, we
are sealed with the same Spirit Who formed that body, “the
Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13). How simple this is;
and in accordance with Rom. 16:25, 26; Col. 1:24-26;
Eph. 3:9.
The Lord Jesus received the Spirit two times. The first
time the Spirit came upon Him in the form of a dove. This
was in accordance with the perfection of His person . He
needed no application of blood first, as we do. And then
when glorified (cp. John 7:39), He received the Spirit from
the Father, as glorified Man, to baptize in the power of one
Spirit, into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), those who were
cleansed by His precious blood, and were waiting below
(Acts 2:32, 33). Thus were they one body with the Head in
heaven. And thus was the promise of the Father fulfilled
concerning His sending the Spirit.
Peter’s Message
We now come to the OT Scripture Peter quoted. Did he
quote it in order to tell the Jews that David’s earthly throne
had just been transferred to heaven? -- and that Christ was
just seated on David’s throne? -- and that the prophesied
reign was changed from a kingdom on earth to a spiritual
reign in heaven? Well, anti-dispensational theology thinks to
load this passage with all that freight.
34. O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 136.
What Throne Is Christ on Now?
HOW THEOLOGY ANSWERS
There is a theological process that involves “spiritualizing”
the OT prophecies so as to have the church be the subject of
those prophecies -- leaving the OT curses for literal Israel
and the promises of blessing for the spiritual Israel (i.e.,
allegedly the church). That is the general framework for
handling such passages as we are considering. In the process
of this spiritual alchemy, the passage we are considering
must mean, therefore, that Christ is on David’s throne now,
even though no NT text has been produced that states it.
This process involves:
1.
Transferring David’s earthly throne to heaven and
changing David’s throne from an earthly to a heavenly
throne;
2.
Making the church the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32);
3.
Begin the reign of Christ at Pentecost;
4.
Ignore the fact that Christ says he is now on the Father’s
throne (Rev. 3:21);
5.
When Christ speaks of sitting on His own throne, move
178
that to the eternal state.
WHAT PETER DID NOT SAY
In Acts 2 we do not find Peter stating or implying what is
found in points 1-3 above. These points are mere theological
assertions. Peter was proving from the OT that Messiah
would die, be resurrected and sit down at God’s right hand.
It was this that reached the conscience of some of Peter’s
hearers (Acts 2:37). There is not a word here, or anywhere
else, that Christ is now occupying David’s throne. 35
CHRIST DISTINGUISHED HIS THRONE
FROM THE FATHER’S THRONE
He that overcomes, to him will I give to sit with me in my
throne; as I have overcome, and have sat down with my
Father in his throne (Rev. 3:21).
Here, our Lord distinguished His own throne from the
Fathers’ throne. 36 He is not on His own throne of glory
now. Yet we are told that He is reigning now on David’s
throne. What does Scripture say regarding Christ’s reign?
Psalm 110:1, 2 says:
Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I
put thine enemies [as] footstool of thy feet. Jehovah shall
send the scepter of thy might out of Zion: rule in the
midst of thine enemies.
With respect to His enemies Christ sits at God’s right hand,
where He now is, UNTIL His enemies are made the footstool
of His feet. 37 But by the spiritualizers His enemies are, in
effect, told He is reigning now. When will He rule in the
midst of His enemies? When Jehovah makes them Messiah’s
footstool -- when Jehovah sends the scepter of Christ’s might
out of Zion. Clearly, the reign upon David’s throne is in the
millennium.
The Psalm does not speak of the extermination of the
enemies, though some will be (Rev. 19, etc.). Some will
feign obedience (Psalm 18:44; 66:3). But such shall come
to their end in the little time when Satan is loosed from the
abyss and deceives them, if not before then.
The Psalm does not say that while Messiah is at
Jehovah’s right hand, Jehovah is making, gradually, or in
any other way, Christ’s enemies His footstool. 38 He is now
gathering His co-heirs for heaven. After the rapture He will
35. See W. Kelly, The Second Advent of Christ, Glasgow: Allan, 1868, p.
67. Also, The Bible Treasury 17:173, etc., for a reply to postmillennialism.
36. Incredibly, P. Mauro, The Patmos Visions, Swengel: Reiner, 1971
reprint, p. 138 says, “This needs no comment.” R. J. Rushdoony (the father
of reconstructionism) a postmillennialist, Thy Kingdom Come, Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1971, p.127, says essentially nothing. W. Hendriksen, More
Than Conquerors, Tyndale: London, p.79, 1940, places Christ’s throne “in
the hereafter,” in heaven (p. 191).
37. With respect to His work on Calvary, Christ will never get up (Heb.
10:12). Sitting until His enemies are made the footstool of His feet is no
more valid an objection to His coming for His own at the pre-tribulation
rapture, than is Heb. 10:12 a valid ground of objection. He is also seen
standing in Acts 7 to receive Stephen.
38. This is dealt with in Collected Writings of J. N. Darby 8:5-15.
form a remnant (which the Psalms and the Song of Songs are
about). And when He is manifested, we will be manifested
with Him in glory (Col. 4:3) when He comes in glory and
the armies in heaven with Him (Rev. 19). That is when
Jehovah will set the blessed King of Psalm 2 upon His holy
hill of Zion. That is when Jehovah will send the scepter of
Christ’s might out of Zion. Then the people (the Jewish
nation) “shall be willing in the day of thy power” (Psalm
110:3) for He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob and so
all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26). He will bring them
into the bond of the covenant (Ezek. 20); for that covenant
belongs to Israel (Rom. 9:4), Paul’s kinsmen according to
the flesh (Rom. 9:3); but with all rebels purged out they
shall all be righteous (Isa. 60:21) kinsmen. Then indeed they
will be willing (Psalm 110:3).
It is at that future time that Christ will take His own
throne, the throne of David. It will then display its power
over the whole earth when Christ heads up both the heavenly
and the earthly spheres (Eph. 1:10) for God’s glory.
Meanwhile He has set Himself down at the right hand of the
greatness on high (Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2). At any rate, we
have the express statement that it is the Father’s throne on
which Christ sits now, in contrast to His own throne
(Rev.3:21). Let us now consider His own, future throne.
Covenant Pretribulationists
Are Covenantists
In keeping with their agenda to remove the heavenly position
and portion of the Christian and the church, and make the
church a phase of the Davidic reign of Christ, two leaders in
this effort, write, concerning Acts 2:22-36:
{Peter} then argues that this enthronement has taken place
upon the entrance of Jesus into heaven, in keeping with
the language of Psalm 110:1 that describes the seating of
David’s son at God’s right hand.
. . . the Davidic nature of Christ’s present activity . . . .
. . . every New Testament description of the present
throne of Jesus 39 is drawn from Davidic promises . . . .
. . . the Bible itself describes the present position and
activities of Christ in terms of the promises covenanted to
David. 40
Think about that last statement quoted. It means that Christ’s
position as Head of the Body is described in terms of the
promises covenanted to David. Just so is it with the Lord as
the second man, and also as the last Adam. All his glories in
connection with these titles are lowered. And this is true of
Him as “the Son of man” also, a title the bearing of which we
39. {There is no such thing as a “present throne of Jesus.” It is a theological
figment.}
Wheaton: Victor Books, pp. 177, 180, 182, 186 (1993).
will consider a little, below. No wonder that they have joined
the chorus that contradicts Rom. 16:25, Col. 1:26 and Eph.
3:9. They are engaged in a systematic effort to undermine the
truth of the heavenly position and portion of the Head and His
members. Writers such as these declare themselves incapable
of seeing the difference between Rev. 3:21 and 1 Chron.
17:13, 14 and Psalm 89:26. Their system lowers the saints
now to the level of millennial saints -- with Christ reigning
over them now in a spiritual way. Such is the Christianity of
what they call “Progressive Dispensationalism.”
The Glories of The Son of Man
Following is a few quotations regarding the fact that Christ’s
glories as the Son of man are far higher than those as the Son
of David. The Lord Jesus is not know carrying out His
function as the Son of David, but as David’s Lord.
His government and headship over creation are not to be
confounded. The government laid on His shoulder is not
His headship over creation. His being born a King is not
His headship over creation either. And, though it be the
Messiah who is set over all things, it is not as Messiah,
but as Son of man; and as Son of man, it is not till after
His death that all power in heaven and in earth is, by
God’s act of devolution, laid on Him. Till then, though the
person was there who was to have it, man and the Jews
were put to the test; and until Christ was rejected, the time
was not come for Him to take this place.
But we have another truth here: the Son of man was
to re-enter heaven as Man, to be Head over all things. As
Son of God He has been appointed Heir (Heb. 1); He is
such as Creator (Col. 1), but also as Man and Son of man,
according to God’s counsels. (Psalm 8, quoted in
Ephesians 1, in 1 Corinthians 15, in Hebrews 2 -passages which develop clearly His place in this respect.)
Proverbs 8 teaches us that He who was Jehovah’s delight
before the foundation of the world, rejoiced then in the
habitable parts of the earth, and His delights were in the
sons of men. The angels (Luke 2) recall this truth, or
rather the proofs which His incarnation gave of the
thoughts of God in this respect; they speak of this
incarnation as the manifestation of God’s good pleasure in
men. As then He has been the manifestation of God upon
earth, He enters as Man into the glory of God on high.
He will reign over the earth as Head of the creation,
gathering together all things under His authority (Col. 1);
but here we speak of heavenly things. The Son of man
takes His place on high to be Head over all things (1 Peter
3: 22; John 13:3; 16:15). 41
Following up the lecturer’s remarks {W. Kelly’s}, 42
41. Collected Writings of J. N. Darby 33:164, 165. See also 33:204n, 234;
24:41; Notes and Comments 2:416; Notes and Jottings, pp. 41, 238-240.
42. See the remarks by W. Kelly in his Exposition of the Gospel of Mark, at
the end of Chapter 2 regarding the Son of man being Lord of the Sabbath as
well as his comments in Chapter 8 where the Lord forbid them to say that he
(continued...)
which introduce the reader to a very different atmosphere
from that of conventional scholarship, we may develop
these by reference to the Synopsis of the Books of the
Bible by Mr. J. N. Darby. The second Psalm, he
explains, in the light of Acts 4:25 ff., as exhibiting to us
the Son of God, rejected in His character of Messiah the
eighth as setting Him forth “the Son of man,” with a
higher glory (cf. John 1:49 ff, 12:23, 34). In Mark 9,
Peter having confessed Jesus as Messiah, the Lord
thereupon drops that title for the time being, to introduce
His sufferings as Son of man. In Ezekiel the title “suited
the testimony of a God who spoke outside of His people”
{just so in Daniel also}. “It is Christ’s own title, looked
at as rejected and outside of Israel. He would not, thus
rejected, allow His disciples to announce Him as the
Christ, for the Son of man was to suffer” (ibid. 2:370).
“He could not be rejected as Christ without His having a
more glorious place destined to Him” (ibid. 2:78). On
Dan. 7 the same writer remarks: “It is not now the
Messiah, owned as King in Zion, but ONE in the form of
the Son of man, a title of far greater and more wide
significance. It is the change from Psa. 2. to Psa. 8
brought about by the rejection of the Messiah”(ibid.
2:437).
In his Lectures on Matthew W. Kelly has remarked,
with reference to the use of this title in Acts 7:52-56, that
when the Lord “was refused as Messiah, Stephen, finding
that the testimony was rejected, is led of God to testify of
Jesus as the exalted Son of man at God’s right hand” (p.
352).
Attempts are made to divorce the Synoptic from the
Johannine treatment of the Lord’s ministry in general; but
a comparison of Mark 14:64 with John 10:36 would
show what a link this title forms between the three first
and the fourth Gospels. Cf. Schanz, A Christian Apology
2:521. Thus in John 6:27 we are told that in His baptism
(Mark 1:10 f. and parr.) the Lord was “sealed “ as Son
of man. Moreover, not only in John’s, but in all the
other narratives the distinction between the titles “Christ”
and “Son of man” is maintained. This is especially
noticeable in Luke 9:26 (cf. Matt. 10:23), but we meet
with it also in Mark 9:21 f. See also 12:34, and compare
Westcott’s note on p. 34 of his Commentary on John.
In all four Gospels the sufferings of the Son of man,
as well as His exaltation, are spoken of; His being future
Judge (John 5:22) is but one form of the latter.
Outside the Gospels, besides Acts 7:52 ff., already
mentioned, reference may be made to 1 Cor. 15, Eph. 1,
and Heb. 2, and, of course, to Rev. 1:3 and 14:14. On
Matt. 9:6, Bengel connects “on earth” with “Son of
man” (as here). Cf. John 3:13. Neander also accepts the
idea of the connection with heaven in the title itself. The
Lord, he says, indicated thereby “His elevation above all
other men, the Son of God in the Son of man” (p.
42. (...continued)
was the Messiah.
179
180
100). 43
This is an assize {Dan. 7}. The thrones are not
overthrown, but placed. The Ancient of days sits in
judgment; myriads of myriads are there before Him. The
books are opened. But as yet the Son of man does not
appear, but only the Ancient of days, in another sense
Christ is Himself the Ancient of days, but here, a little
farther on in the chapter, He is presented to Him (the
Ancient of days) as the Son of man.
In the Apocalypse, when John sees (Rev. 1) the Son
of man, it is with all the attributes of the Ancient of days.
But here the ancient of days is seen Himself apart in
vision, because Christ, in this book, is always considered
as the Messiah, or as the Son of man, in His own separate
and proper character as such, as the Anointed One (and
thus also as man), because it was under this character that
He was known to the Jews, or as inheriting the rights of
man on the part of God in this world.
Herein we have the distinction in the expression
Messiah and Son of man, and this difference may be
particularly traced in the gospel by Matthew. In His
quality of the Anointed One, He appeared as king down
here. When He came thus as Messiah, He was rejected
the Messiah, we are told, was cut off, and had nothing;
Dan. 9:26 (margin). But when God at a future period
shall set up His throne (we are not speaking of His
heavenly glory, for that is already accomplished), it will
not be only as the Messiah. It is not the way of God to
re-establish that which has been spoiled. Such a procedure
would be unworthy of God: if Satan spoils God’s work,
He is not satisfied with simply mending it. Whenever the
folly of man and the malice of Satan have perverted any
passing blessing which God has given to man, God
establishes something infinitely superior. We have a
striking instance of this in Jesus Christ Himself. Man was
placed in innocence upon the earth. This state of things
was soon altered by the folly of man tempted by the devil.
Does God re-establish again an innocent man on the earth?
No. He sets up His own Son, a glorified man in heaven
and earth. Thus God, in allowing the things which He has
presented or confided to man to be corrupted, afterwards
Himself establishes something infinitely superior according
to His own purpose.
In this manner the Messiah was offered as king of the
Jews. Faith, indeed, confessed Him as the Son of God; but
as the Son of David, if He had been received, He would
have possessed the throne of David. Man, being a sinner,
would not receive Him; but when He returns, it will not be
as Messiah, or as the Son of David only. He is gone to
receive a kingdom from the hands of His Father {Luke
18}, an inheritance over all things, not only as Messiah,
but as the Son of man; for God has decreed, that “all
things shall be subdued unto him,” 1 Cor. 15. It is for
this reason that He is seen coming with the clouds of
heaven as Son of man.
43. E. E. Whitfield in W. Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark,
London: Race, p. 248, note 30 (1907 ed.).
When Christ presented Himself to the Jews as
Messiah, and even to the Gentiles under Pontius Pilate,
He was rejected; after which God does not establish Him
as Messiah alone, but as Heir of all things. Is this done
by the will of man? By no means. Christ has been
presented to the good-will of man, but He was received
with hatred and disdain. They crucified Him. He will be
established by the decree of God.
Now when this little horn {Dan. 7} speaks great
things -- when all its insolent pride is manifested -- when
it has come to its height, then the thrones are placed, and
God begins to exercise His power. When power, as
confided to man, is turned into rebellion against God, it
is time for God to act, and for the thrones of judgment to
be placed, for the books to be opened, and for man to
give account to God.
The result of this judgment on the part of the
Ancient of days is to give the kingdom to the Son of man.
It is a question here of this power -- these rights of the
Ancient of days. It is the demonstration that He who had
possessed the rights from the beginning to the end,
although He had been concealed, was He who gave the
power to the one and to the other.
God had been hidden, so to speak, during the time
of the other beasts, nevertheless His providence acted.
The Babylonians were replaced by the Persians, and these
last by the Greeks. All this was done, as things are done
even now, by the arrangement of that providence which
governs the world, because the Ancient of days (whose
rights, notwithstanding, cannot be annihilated) was not
yet sitting to execute judgment on account of the acts
which had been committed against Him. But it will not be
thus at the end. As yet the open revolt had not taken
place. The fourth beast had not yet said, Isaiah 47:8, “I
am, and none else beside me.” Compare what is said to
the prince of Tyre, “Wilt thou yet say before him that
slayeth thee, I am God?” (Ezek. 28:9). The judgment of
this fourth beast will be as against man in a state of open
rebellion against God.
Now the attention of Daniel (7:11) is entirely taken
up with the little horn. “I beheld, then, because of the
voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld
even till the beast was slain; and his body destroyed and
given to the burning flame.” He is amazed to hear there,
in the very presence of God, this horn speaking
blasphemous things. He wondered that God should
permit it ; but he saw the beast slain. This was the result.
Then he says, “As concerning the rest of the beasts, they
had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were
prolonged for a season and time”; that is, after the
dominion had been taken from Babylon, it continued to
subsist for some time, as did the Persian likewise; but
the destruction of the fourth beast shall be entire. To the
others a prolongation of life had been granted after the
fall of the empire; but here the judgment and the
destruction go together.
Consequent upon all this is a third vision (Dan.
7:13, 14). It is the Son of man presented to the Ancient
of days. “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the
clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and
they brought him near before him.” “And there was
given him dominion, and glory . . . that all people . . .
should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting
dominion,” etc., etc. (v. 14). This is the kingdom which
will be confided to Him, and which He will administer for
the subjection of all things to God Himself. 44
The Throne of the Son of Man
Now however confidently this may be affirmed {that Christ
is now on David’s throne}, as it sometimes is, the reader
has only to compare Peter’s words with what he is
represented as saying, to perceive that says no such thing.
He does not say, “that the promise to David of Messiah’s
succession to his throne had received its intended
accomplishment.” He does not say “that His first exercise
of regal authority from the throne of Israel was to send
down the Spirit as had that day been done.” If the objector
infers these things from Peter’s words, it does not
authorize him to put his inferences into Peter’s lips, and
affirm that Peter said these things. The reader may see for
himself that the apostle did not say these things. He says
that David knew that God had sworn to him, of the fruit of
his loins to raise up Christ to sit on his throne; and he
refers to this, and to David’s being a prophet, to show that
when he (David) said in Psalm 16., “Thou wilt not leave
my soul in hell,” &c., he did not speak it of himself, but
of “the resurrection of Christ”; that His soul was not left
in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption. He then gives
his own and his fellow-apostles’ testimony to the fact,
“This Jesus hath (God raised up”; but he does not say,
“and placed upon David’s throne.” So far from this, he
declares the exaltation of Jesus to a seat, which he does tell
us David never occupied! “For David is not ascended into
the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy
footstool.” How David’s throne can be meant by a seat in
the heavens, whither, we are carefully told, David has not
ascended, it must be left for those to explain who lay any
stress upon such an argument.
Rev. 3:7 is another passage referred to in connection
with Isaiah 22:22, as proving “that when Christ claims to
have the key of David’s house, 45 His meaning is, that He
has that anti-typical authority in David’s house which
Eliakim’s robe, girdle, and key faintly shadowed forth; that
He is now exercising this power of the key; and that the
house of David -- as Christ is ruler in it, at least -- can be
none other than the Church of the living God, under the
redeemer’s regal administration.” To this argument we
need only reply that at the end of Isaiah 22 we find that
“the nail fastened in a sure place” (Eliakim) was to “be
removed, and to be cut down, and to fall”; “ and the
44. Collected Writings of J. N. Darby 5:142-144. See also 33:149, 204;
Synopsis 3:14. See The Bible treasury, New Series 8:217-219 for a summary
and classification of the Scriptures that speak of our Lord as the Son of Man.
45. Concerning the key of the house of David, see also Collected writings
of J. N. Darby 11:551 (Morrish ed.) and W. Kelly, The Second Advent, p.
66 (also found in The Bible Treasury, vol. 1).
181
burden that was upon it,” says the prophet, “shall be cut
off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Understand this of
Christ’s relation to the literal Israel, as king, and it is easy
to understand. Messiah, the king of Israel was “cut off;
hut not for himself” (Daniel 9). “The burden” of Jewish
hopes and prospects which hung upon that nail, was “cut
off” along with it; though in resurrection, as we all know,
the whole is yet to be made good. “The key of David” is
in the hand of His risen Son; but it is still “the key of
David,” and it is as such that it is seen in the hands of
Jesus in Rev.3:7-12. It is as opening into a new
dispensation, in which He will he known in this character,
that He addresses the church of Philadelphia, promising to
keep them from “the hour of temptation which shall come
upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”;
and assuring and exhorting them, “Behold I come quickly:
hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy
crown.” These are evidently points in the address to
Philadelphia, which can only find their place, if we regard
that address in its prophetic character; and then, Christ’s
possession of the key of David, as opening into that new
dispensation in which His glory as David’s son, and the
heir of David’s throne, will be displayed, is in perfect
harmony with the whole. But this affords no proof of
Christ’s “now exercising” the power of which “the key of
David” is the distinctive symbol and expression. 46
It is not a question of the efficacy of His sacrifice reaching
backward and forward in God’s mind, no Christian doubts
it, or rather there is no backward and forward there -- nor
if the love of God be the source of life. It is a question of
special positions, taken in time, and which attach
themselves to His manhood, and are exercised in it: Christ
was a King when a man on earth. He witnessed a good
confession to it before Pontius Pilate. But He did not take
His kingdom; He sat on no throne; He was accomplishing
a far more important work. And after having, as
necessarily faithful to promise, presented Himself to
Israel, a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God,
He forbids His disciples to say He was the Christ (saying,
“the Son of man,” a much larger title, in which He passes
from Psalm 2 to Psalm 8, “must suffer”), and so, riding
in on the ass, passes from that to the cross. Remark here
how He shows that, in the literal interpretation of the
prophecies as to the kingdom, the Jews did not deceive
themselves. He is King as to His title now, but He has
not taken His kingdom; He is not sitting on His own
throne, but on His Father’s; and He Himself makes the
difference. To him that overcometh will I give to sit
down on My throne, as I have overcome, and am set
down on My Father’s throne. To Him alone, the Son, it
appertains in righteousness to sit on His Father’s throne.
it would be blasphemy to set us there. He glorified God
His Father and is glorified with Him; we with Himself
when He takes the kingdom. He is gone to receive the
kingdom and to return.
To say the Father’s throne is David’s throne, is
nonsense. God was to raise up one of David’s seed to sit
46. W. Trotter, Plain Papers on Prophetic and Other Subjects, London:
Morrish, pp. 544, 545.
182
on David’s throne, and that means, they tell us, the
Father’s (p. 139). Cannot a child see the perversity of such
an interpretation. The royalty is not, and is never said to
be, to save (p. 186 and following), unless in outward
deliverance by power. If it be, let Dr. B {David Brown}
quote the passage. He saves, in giving life as Son of God,
in redeeming by His precious blood, in the exercise of His
priesthood, from weaknesses. But salvation of souls is not
attributed to His royalty, nor is He King over His church.
On the contrary, Scripture declares that when He reigns,
we shall reign with Him. It is in vain to use large words
about it. There are those who must have Scripture
testimony for what they believe. Nor does a teaching
which makes the Father’s throne David’s throne, commend
itself to those who have received their teaching from
Scripture. Neither the apostles nor the Lord seek to
overthrow the prophecies of the kingdom. They give
something better. The Lord sanctions the expectations of
His disciples when they speak of restoring the kingdom to
Israel. They ask, Wilt thou at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel {Acts 1:5, 6}? What is His answer? “It
is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the
Father hath put in his own power.” Is that the times and
the seasons for not doing it at all, or for doing it? It is
impossible that a child could not see that it is to be done,
but that the time was not revealed, and that the Lord gives
them another work to do now. But He explicitly sanctions
their expectations. So Paul declares that the restoration of
Israel will be by the Redeemer going forth out of Zion
{Rom. 11:26}. The object of the New Testament is not
the kingdom in Israel; but a rejected glorified Christ and
the church, and our present condition. But the prophecies
of the Old Testament are expressly sanctioned. “Ye shall
not see me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed be he that
cometh in the name of the Lord.”
When once the place of the church is seen, and its
place with Christ in heavenly glory, all falls into its
scriptural place, and the church itself is not reduced to
an improved Judaism, as it is by these teachers. 47 48
The restoration of the kingdom of Israel, under the Son of
David. is the special fruit of the resurrection of Jesus; the
ascension serves the uses of this present dispensation (Eph.
4:8). Accordingly St. Peter makes a distinction between
these things, telling us that the resurrection was required
because of the promises made to David’s throne, and that
the ascension was required because of the promise of the
Holy Ghost to the church (Acts 2). The prophets, in
accordance with this, commonly present the hopes and
revival of Israel under the figure of resurrection (Isa.
26:19, Ezek. 37, Hos. 6:2); and it appears that the Jews
regarded the Messiah, the resurrection, and the kingdom,
as substantially one and the same thing (see John 11:25-27,
Luke 23: 42).
47. {I have emphasized this. Systems, such as the one espoused by David
Brown in J. N. Darby’s day, “reduced to an improved Judaism” the church.
I have said that the covenant pretibulationism reduces the saint to the level of
a millennial saint, which means an improved Judaism.}
48. “Work of the Rev. D. Brown, D. D.,” Collected Writings of J. N.
Darby 11:354, 355.
Resurrection, in these observations, I advisedly
distinguish from ascension. In many senses I know they
are treated in scripture as the same. But here, by
resurrection, I mean our blessed Lord’s return from the
grave to the earth; and, by ascension, His return from
earth to heaven. It would have served the purposes of this
dispensation had the Lord at once gone from the grave to
heaven; for it is in Him, as in heaven, that the church
finds her direct and immediate interest (Rom. 5:10, 2
Cor. 4:10, Eph. 4:8, Col. 3:1, Heb. 3:1, 4:14, 7:25,
10:12, 1 John 2:1). She is maintained and is to come to
her full stature by the virtues of the ascended Jesus; for as
such He is the head of life, and dispenser of the Spirit to
His members; but it is the kingdom of Israel which is to
manifest the direct fruit of the resurrection, inasmuch as
it is to witness Christ on earth again, the head of the
nation., the restorer of the earthly human system -- the
Son of David.
Our Lord Jesus clearly recognized Himself as Son of
David, for He answered every appeal made to Him in
that Character. But He was more than David’s Son, He
was also David’s Lord. Into this condition, however, He
did not formally enter as to dispensation, till He ascended
and was glorified at the right hand of God. (Matt. 22).
But then he did; and the saints, having association with
Him as thus ascended, sit with Him in His glory as
David’s Lord; and will therefore judge the world . . . 49
Matt. 25:31-34 says:
But when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the
angels with him, then shall he sit down upon his throne
of glory, and all the nations shall be gathered before him;
and he shall separate them from one another, as the
shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and he will
set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on [his] left.
Then shall the King say to those on his right hand, Come,
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from [the] world’s foundation.
The Son of Man has never yet come in His glory, and all the
angels with Him. This, then, must be future. If Christ is not
on David’s throne now, then it is very likely that this throne
of glory is David’s throne. Here we see Christ acting as
Solomon did in 1 Kings 1-3. Indeed, it requires both David
and Solomon as types of the future actings of great David’s
greater Son. When the Lord Jesus comes in His glory, there
is a short period when He smites the enemies of Israel
(typified by David) just preceding the millennial reign (the
reign typified by Solomon).
The twelve apostles will have a special place with Christ
when He shall sit down upon His throne of glory:
And Jesus said to them, Verily I say unto you, That ye
who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son
of man shall sit down upon his throne of glory, ye also
shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel (Matt. 19:28; cp. Luke 22:30).
The regeneration refers to the millennial reign. See also
Matt. 20:21, where a mother wanted her two sons to sit, one
on the right and one on the left, of Himself in His kingdom.
But the Father has prepared that place for whom He will.
That place will be in the millennial kingdom, not in the eternal
state. The twelve apostles did not sit upon twelve thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel after Pentecost, nor now,
there being no such thing as a partial fulfillment of this. They
will do so during the “regeneration.” “The force of the word
is a change of position; a new state of things. The word is
only used here {Titus 3:5}, and in Matt. 19:28 for the
Savior’s coming kingdom” (J. N. Darby). But if one rejects
the truth of the future millennial reign of Christ, then this
must be relegated to the eternal state. 50
See, then, how spiritual alchemy works in covenant
theology. The promise to David regarding the sitting of
Messiah upon David’s throne (Jer. 33:14-18; cp. Micah 5:2;
Luke 1:32, 33) is transmuted from an earthly throne to a
throne in heaven now; while asserting that when the Lord
Jesus referred to His throne of glory, He is speaking of the
eternal state. This is necessitated by amillennialists asserting
that Christ is reigning now.
Spiritual alchemy is also at work in Covenant
Pretribulationism, which has, in reality, changed the nature of
the throne of David by moving it to heaven, where David had
never sat on his throne, without the slightest Scripture reason
for it. The notion is driven by raproachment with
covenantism. David’s throne is connected with the
development of Gods ways in government in the earth. It has
to do with the earthlies, not the heavenlies. Now, this
foundation line of dispensational truth (i.e., the development
of God’s ways in government in the earth) does not appear in
the Scofield system 51
Observe, once again, that the true view of this accords
with the fact that Scripture lays it down quite expressly that
the church was not the subject of the OT prophecies (Rom.
16:25, 26; Col. 1:24-26; Eph. 3:8-11). The true view
accords, too, with the fact that the death of Christ provided
for the salvation of that future righteous nation (John 11:51,
52), for our blessed Lord was “a minister of [the]
circumcision for [the] truth of God, to confirm the promises
of the fathers”; and not that alone, but also “that the nations
should glorify God for mercy” (Rom. 15:8, 9).
Joel’s prophecy will then be fulfilled. Isaiah says:
50. H. N. Ridderbos relegates this to “the new world . . . Rev. 21:1-5,”
(Matthew, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p.360, 1987) as does W. Hendriksen,
The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 730, 1973) who confounds
confusion by asserting, “Ranged, as it were, around the throne (cf. Rev. 4:4)
there will be twelve other thrones.” What imagination!
51. Another foundational truth, the end of the testing of the first man at the
cross, does not appear either. These truths are set out in my J. N. Darby’s
Teaching Regarding Dispensations, Ages, Administrations and the Two
Parentheses, available from the publisher.
183
And the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed;
for Jehovah of hosts shall reign on mount Zion, and in
Jerusalem, and before his ancients in glory (Isa. 24:23).
Then will Jehovah-Jesus have the throne of David, rule over
the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32) and over the whole earth in the
administration of the fullness of times (Eph. 1:10).
A Jew reading the OT prophecies concerning the throne
of David and the Messiah would rightly have believed that that
throne was here on earth. Just so would Peter’s hearers
understand it. Notice that Peter did not spiritualize these
prophecies. He did not state that Christ was reigning now. He
did not state that His enemies were going to be gradually put
under His feet over a long period of time (cp. Psalm 110:1-3).
He did not tell his hearers that the throne of David, which had
been on earth, in Jerusalem, was now transferred to heaven.
And this brings us to the next passage for consideration, Acts
3:19-26, where we shall see that the Jews must repent for “the
times {seasons} of refreshing” to come; i.e., the reign of
Messiah upon David’s throne in Jerusalem.
There are some OT Scriptures that speak of David’s
throne in four instructive ways, to which another text is added:
#
#
#
#
“the throne of David” (1 Kings 2:24, etc. etc.)
#
“at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of
Jehovah” (Jer. 3:17)52
“the throne of Israel” (2 Chron. 6:10, 16)
“the throne of Jehovah” (1 Chron. 29:23)
“the throne of the kingdom of Jehovah” (1 Chron.
28:5)
The reader should steadily keep before him that the
governmental power of the throne of David was transferred to
the Gentile (Dan. 2) and is with the Gentile for the duration of
“the times of the Gentiles.” These times are depicted by the
image of Dan. 2 and run until the destruction by the smiting
stone, which represents the appearing of Christ in glory to set
up the earthly kingdom. Then the governmental power will be
taken by Christ. That David’s throne exists now in any sense
is theological fog clouding the mind to( not merely the true
character of the throne of David but) the true glory of Christ
now, and lowers the church to the level of a millennial saint.
Chapter 8.3 contains a lengthy quotation from J. N. Darby
regarding the conditions under which Israel became Lo-Ammi
(not my people), how reinstatement will be brought about, how
this all bears on the development of God’s ways in
government, how the governmental power was transferred to
the Gentiles, and how this affects the question of “the people
of God.”
52. W. Kelly remarked:
The gospel is not the throne of Jehovah. The throne of Jehovah
means the governmental power, according to His name, Jehovah,
put forth over the whole earth. Jeremiah promises this, and
Zechariah (chapter 14) also shows us very distinctly the character
of that throne . . . Jeremiah, London: Hammond, p. 17 (1930
ed.).
184
Chapter 4.4: Acts 3:19-26: The Seasons of Refreshing, etc.
185
Chapter 4.4
Acts 3: 19-26:
The Times of Refreshing and
of the Restoration of All Things
Repent therefore and be converted, for the blotting out of
your sins, so that times of refreshing may come from [the]
presence of the Lord, and he may send Jesus Christ, who
was foreordained for you, whom heaven indeed must
receive till [the] times of [the] restoration of all things, of
which God has spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets
since time began. Moses indeed said, A prophet shall
[the] Lord your God raise up to you out of your brethren
like me: him shall ye hear in everything whatsoever he
shall say to you. And it shall be that whatsoever soul shall not hear
that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. And
indeed all the prophets from Samuel and those in succession after
[him], as many as have spoken, have announced also these days. Ye
are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant of God appointed to
our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families
of the earth be blessed. To you first God, having raised up his
servant, has sent him, blessing you in turning each one [of you] from
your wickedness (Acts 3:19-26).
The questions to be answered are these:
1. What are the times of refreshing, the times of the restoration of all things, and “these days”?
2. When do they begin?
What Are These Times?
The answer is: the millennium and the reign of Christ (Isa.
44:3; 59:20; Ezek. 34:26). Now, there is a very important,
related question; and that is, does the repentance in v. 19
refer only to the repentance of some of the Jews, or does it
require the repentance of all of them to realize all these
blessing? It is true that an individual Jew who repented
would have his sins blotted out, but that would hardly be the
cause of God sending Jesus Christ. This fact indicates that
a national repentance is connected with God’s sending Jesus
Christ.
The prophets spoke of “these days” (Acts 3:24). They
spoke of the reign of Messiah on earth. “These days” are
the “times of refreshing” and “[the] times of [the] restoring
of all things.” These expressions refer to characteristics of
the days of Messiah’s millennial reign. Their arrival depends
on the national repentance of Israel.
THE NATIONAL REPENTANCE OF ISRAEL
While, of course, an individual repentant person has his sins
blotted out, the passage has in view the national repentance
of Israel. Peter preached: repent . . . so that this and that
will come. Individual Jews repented, but the nation has not,
and Christ has not yet come. His appearing in glory is
bound up with the future of the nation as such.
For I say that Jesus Christ became a minister of [the]
circumcision for [the] truth of God, to confirm the
promises of the fathers; and that the nations should
glorify God for mercy . . . (Rom. 15:8, 9)
. . . Jesus was going to die for the nation; and not for the
nation only , but that he should gather together into one
the children of God who were scattered abroad. (John
11:51, 52).
. . . my brethren, my kinsmen, according to flesh; who
are Israelites; whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the
promises; whose [are] the fathers; and of whom, as
according to flesh [is] the Christ, who is over all, God
blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom. 9:3-5).
When turning over our Lord to the civil power for execution,
the leadership said, “We have no king but Caesar” (John
19:15).
Rom. 11:26 teaches that all Israel shall be saved; as Isa.
60:21 declares that they shall all be righteous. What was a
Jew supposed to understand by Isa. 60:21; that the church
would be all righteous?
God will destroy the wicked out of the land (Zech. 13:8)
and the wicked of Israel outside the land will not enter
186
therein (Ezek. 20). What remains will compose the righteous
nation. The national restoration is dependent upon national
repentance. What is meant by national repentance is that the
entire body of persons composing the nation will repent of
their own sins and the sin of Israel in rejecting their Messiah
(cp. Zech. 12:10-14).
There is a great fulfillment of the day of atonement (Lev.
16 & 23) ahead for the people thus born in a day (Isa. 66:8).
There is coming for Israel what answers to the last three
feasts of Jehovah (Lev. 23). The blowing of trumpets
signifies the regathering of the people (on the first of the
seventh month). The feast of booths (the fifteenth day of the
month) signifies the inauguration of the kingdom. In
between will be the 10th of the month -- the day of
atonement. Israel’s entry into its significance as never felt
before will result from God’s outpouring of “the spirit of
grace and of supplications,” when the restored nation,
composed of all the righteous, shall be bowed before Jehovah
(Zech. 12:10 - 13:1). This is a national owning of sin.
There is also such a thing as a national adoption and it
belongs to Paul’s “kinsmen, according to flesh; who are
Israelites; whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the
promises” (Rom. 9:3, 4). Christ had died “for the nation”
(John 11:51) and our Lord “become a minister of [the]
circumcision for [the] truth of God, to confirm the promises
of the fathers; and that the nations should glorify God for
mercy” (Rom. 5:8, 9).
Perhaps Psalm 51, occasioned by David’s great sin,
looks on to Israel’s repentance for the blood guiltiness of
killing their Messiah. Then will they all run into the city of
refuge, though not before.
Some think our Lord’s prayer, “Father forgive them for
they know not what they do” was answered in early Acts. It
seems to me that it will be answered in connection with the
national repentance of Israel. Our Lord said “them.” That
is the nation. The Gentile power, implicated of course in the
death of Christ, was the instrument of the leaders of Israel to
slay their Messiah.
The Times of Refreshing
presence of the Lord, and He may send forth Him that
hath been foreappointed for you, Jesus Christ, Whom
heaven must receive till times of restoring all things . . .
While our blessings are in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph.
1:3), these seasons of refreshing refer to the blessing here
on earth under Messiah’s reign. For example, consider the
feasts of Jehovah spoken of in Ezek. 40-48, which chapters
speak of Millennial worship. The Jews will, of course, have
begun sacrifices which will be carried out for part of Daniel’s
70th week -- since the coming Roman prince will cause them
to stop in the middle of the week (Dan. 9:27). No doubt
other aspects of the Jewish seasons will also be in force.
Indeed, the Beast (Rev. 13:1-7) will change “seasons and the
law” (Dan. 7:25). But in the restoration of all things, the
seasons of refreshing will be enjoyed under Christ’s
beneficent reign. 53
WHEN WILL THESE SEASONS OF REFRESHING OCCUR?
Look again at what the Scripture states:
Repent, therefore, and be converted for the blotting out
of your sins, so that seasons of refreshing may come
from the presence of the Lord, and He may send Jesus
Christ . . . (Acts 3:19, W. K.).
Repent why? -- for three things:
#
#
#
blotting out of your sins
so that seasons of refreshing may come
and God may send Jesus Christ
All three are dependent on the repentance. It is not merely
individuals here and there, repenting. No. The sending of
Jesus Christ is dependent on the repentance of which Peter
spoke. Presently, if an individual repents, his sins are
blotted out and he may sense refreshment, but God sending
Jesus Christ has nothing to do with that individual thing. So,
the attempt to apply “seasons of refreshing” to the present,
thus individualizing it, really disjoins what God has here put
together as interconnected.
O. T. Allis says: “This is a difficult passage.” Do you
think it was a difficult passage for Peter’s Jewish listeners?
Do you think they said, ‘He probably means that I will have
times of refreshment, and someday God will send Jesus
Christ; and as to what the times of restoration of all things
WHAT ARE THE TIMES OF REFRESHING?
When considering Acts 1:7, we observed that “times”
(chronos) refers to duration or date of occurrence
chronologically, while “seasons” (kairos) refers to
characteristics of the chronological periods. In Acts 1:7,
these two words apply to the same events, not to two
differing periods. In Acts 3:19 we read of “times (kairos) of
refreshing. W. Kelly translates:
Repent, therefore, and be converted for the blotting out of
your sins, so that seasons of refreshing may come from the
53. F. F. Bruce said:
. . . the expression suggests rather “moments of relief during the
time men spend in waiting for that day (The Acts of the Apostles,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 143, (1990, third ed.). Some of the
“Progressive Dispensationalists” have joined in this sort of view,
as they did in separating times and seasons in Acts 1:7. In their
case, the seasons of refreshing are a part of the allegedly present
Davidic reign of Christ (Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock,
eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, pp. 56-58).
However, another leader in this retrogression, Robert L. Saucy,
The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 271, dissents
from this and applies it to Israel’s future.
Chapter 4.4: Acts 3:19-26: The Seasons of Refreshing, etc.
might be, I will ask an amillennialist’? I believe it is a very
simple passage if we jettison the notion that this is an O. T.
prophecy about the church. Theology must have at least
some of this apply presently, hence O. T. Allis reasons:
Consequently, it seems proper to conclude that the apostle
is speaking of two matters which are closely related: the
immediate blessings resulting from the acceptance of the
Savior who has died for sinners and the future blessings
which will follow upon His return to the earth from which
He had so recently ascended. It does not seem necessary
to insist either that the seasons of refreshing must wait for
a coming which may be remote, or that the coming must
itself be very near at hand despite the plain intimation
which is given to the contrary. The seasons of refreshing
may begin at once and include as an important feature in
their refreshing the assured hope of the coming of the One
who has made them possible. So understood Peter’s
words refer to the entire inter-advental period which is to
end with the advent, in other words to the entire Church
age. 54
The fact is that Scripture says:
Repent . . . so that times of refreshing may come from
[the] presence of the Lord, and he may send Jesus Christ
....
The times of refreshing are not a refreshing for an individual
anymore than the times of the restoring of all things are times
for the restoration of individuals, although then individuals
will be blessed with restoration and refreshing. This refers to
the earth brought into blessing under the reign of Christ, with
restored Israel at the head of the nations. His assertion is the
exigency of a false system.
Besides, the repentance refers to the nation of Israel, as
such, though, of course, each individual in Israel will have his
sins blotted out.
The Restoration of All Things
While speaking (erroneously) much about how “the time of
refreshing” applies now to a believer, it is interesting to note
the cavalier fashion in which O. T. Allis dismisses “[the]
times of [the] restitution of all things”:
The only warrant for finding in his reference to the
“restoration of all things” the offer of the re-establishment
of the earthly Davidic kingdom is to be found in the
argument which has been already discussed that the
kingdom promised to the Jews was such an earthly
kingdom. But whatever this expression may mean it refers
to a future event. 55
187
3:21).
This Scripture states that the prophets spoke about the times
of restoring all things. Those who say the prophecies are
about the church ought to look into this -- for O. T. Allis tells
us the times of the restoring of all things is future. In effect,
he pushed the restoration of all things into the eternal state.
Our Lord spoke of Elijah as having some part in restoring in
a future day (Mal. 4:6; Matt. 17:11; Mark 9:12). What
would that have to do with the eternal state? But their
prophecies were not occupied with the eternal state. So what
the prophecies spoke of is either the church or the future
kingdom under Messiah. Now, he knew that the present did
not answer to the restoring of all things. It seems to me to be
so evident a fact that it would be the exigencies of a false
theological system to assert that the present is the restoring of
all things. But so is it the exigency of a false theological
system to claim that the times of restoration of all things, of
which God has spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets
since time began, means their speaking about the eternal state.
Only premillennialism does justice to this Scripture.
The two phrases we are considering refer to the same era
but in two aspects: seasons of refreshing and restoration to a
right condition before God. You should be able to see why
O. T. Allis wanted to separate the two. The seasons of
refreshing does not appear to be a phrase apply to the eternal
state, and since he will not allow for the future kingdom it
must be forced to fit now.
There is no teaching of ultimate salvation for all persons
(universalism) in this passage. What will be restored is all
things that the prophets said would be restored, not all the
lost. 56
The “regeneration” of Matt. 19:28 speaks of the same
period, as does Rom. 8:20, 21, the administration of the
fullness of times (Eph. 1:10). These scriptures, as well as the
prophecies of the OT that spoke of “these days,” look
forward to a restoration both physical and spiritual.
Last century, Charles Stanley (of Rotherham) mentioned
that this passage awoke many to the truth of the premillennial
advent of Christ. And well it might, for we have the inspired
declaration that the times of the restoration of all things was
spoken of by the prophets. And Acts 3 shows it is future and
bound up with the second advent. Thus the prophets spoke of
the millennial kingdom, not the church; and so, Christ’s
advent is premillennial.
What is so difficult for alchemists of the OT prophecies?
. . . whom heaven indeed must receive till [the] times of
[the] restoration of all things, of which God has spoken by
the mouth of his holy prophets since time began (Acts
55. Ibid, p. 141.
56. The Harper Collins Study Bible, p. 2064 (1993), says, “Universal
Restoration is not the restoration of Israel’s kingdom (cf. 1:6) but is roughly
the equivalent of salvation itself.” If true, this means that the OT prophets
spoke of universal restoration, since time began. Absurd, but more
importantly, wicked. Concerning universalism, see Collected writings of J.
N. Darby, 31:75-134.
188
The Offer of The Kingdom
In Acts 3:19-21 there is an offer of the kingdom. O. T. Allis
objected:
For if the offer of this kingdom had already been
postponed for the entire Church age, what right had Peter
to offer it practically at once to Jews whose hands were
red with the blood of their Messiah, and on exactly the
same terms as those on which it had been offered to them
some three years previously? If this is the meaning of
Peter’s exhortation, there was really no postponement of
the kingdom offer. The kingdom was just as much “at
hand”
when he preached this sermon as it had ever been.
57
The answer is simple. The offer of the kingdom did not come
to an end before the cross. The offer took two forms,
however:
1. Before the cross the kingdom was preached as “at hand.”
Messiah had not died then. The Kingdom was offered in
the Person of the lowly Lord Jesus and was contingent
upon accepting Him. This was a moral test of the state
of soul. But they wanted a belly-filler (John 6), not the
bread come down from heaven. His crucifixion was the
end of God’s testing of the first man.
2. But by the time we reach Acts 3, He had died and gone
to heaven. Consequently the form of the offer takes this
change into account. The kingdom was not preached by
Peter as at hand. This offer was contingent upon
acceptation of the Lord Jesus in exaltation. And now a
national repentance was needed concerning their guilt in
killing Messiah. Certainly there was a change in the
form of the offer. Moreover, His rejection as the exalted
one in glory, through the stoning of Stephen, ended the
year of exposure of their state.
Consider the parable of Luke 13:6-9. For three years the
Lord came seeking fruit from the fig-tree, i.e., Israel as a
nation. Note that for the following year the servant (i.e., the
Holy Spirit) applied what was necessary in order to produce
fruitfulness. It produced no fruit. But note that the Lord’s
work in respect to seeking fruit from Israel for 3 years was
carried on by Another. And this corresponds to the two
forms of the offer. We find the Spirit’s testimony to Israel
carried out as recorded in the beginning of Acts. He digs the
ground and dungs it. Now, this parable teaches something or
it does not. It teaches that this continuation of seeking fruit
from Israel continued for a year after the Lord’s ministry of
three years.
the Man now gone to the far country. They listened to
Stephen until he said that he saw the Son of Man in the glory.
(Blessed thought: the Shekinah is linked with the Lord Jesus.)
Thus ended the year of grace during which God still
sought fruit from Israel as a nation. In result it was a year of
exposure of their awful state -- resisting the witness of the
Spirit as Stephen charged them in Acts 7. The Man of God’s
purpose was seated in the glory for that whole year and they
heard Stephen until he testified that he saw Him in the glory
of God. Rapid changes then took place. The Ethiopians and
Samaritans found Christ (ch. 8); the great apostle of the
nations was saved (ch. 9); and Peter preached to Gentiles
(ch. 10), etc.
We are offered another objection: if this is so, then the
“Church age” might have terminated at its beginning 58 but
this termination could not be so early according to Rom.
11:25.
We have already considered the synchronization of four
“until’s.” The point is that God knew they would reject the
offer. We have considered the morality of this elsewhere,
and have observed that God may justly do this since He
knows the end from the beginning. Man cannot make an
offer based on complete knowledge of everything. God can.
So God cannot be taxed with such a matter as man must be.
Do not reason from yourself to what God can and cannot do.
Which God Hath Spoken by The Mouth
Of His Holy Prophets Since Time Began
We have seen from Rom. 16:25, Col. 1:26 and Eph. 3:9 that
the prophets did not speak about the church. Moreover, it is
instructive to note the different way in which Scripture speaks
concerning the world in regard to the Jew, Gentile and
Church of God (1 Cor. 10:32):
#
Jew: Israel’s blessings are from the foundation of the
world (Heb. 4:3; 59 Rev. 13:8; 17:8).
#
Gentile: their future blessing is prepared from the
foundation of the world (Matt. 25:34; Rev. 13:8; 17:8).
#
Church: our blessings are from before the foundation of
the world (Eph. 1:4).
We should ask when this added year of the Holy Spirit’s
effort concerning the nation ended. The parable of Luke
19:11-27 gives us the indication. The embassy that these
citizens (Jews) sent after the man WHO WAS GONE was
Stephen. They sent him up with the message of rejection to
58. Ibid.
59. Israel will enter into that rest in the millennium. It has an application for
believers meanwhile.
189
Chapter 4.5
Acts 4-14
Is Acts 4:23-31
a Fulfillment of Psalm 2:1, 2?
Christ is with the new, and it is still a pilgrim church. . .”
* Moses and Christ are over the same house (Heb. 3:5,
6), and the one house called the “church” in Acts!
(*F. F. Bruce, NIC New Testament: Acts
61
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 152.)
Concerning this passage, O. T. Allis says:
According to this passage the early Christians saw, in the
sufferings of Christ and in the persecutions which they
were being called upon to endure because of their loyalty
to Him in the preaching of the gospel, a fulfillment of Ps.
2:1-2. Since Dispensationalists admit a partial fulfillment
of Joel 2 in the events of the day of Pentecost, they should
be ready to recognize at least a partial fulfillment of
prophecy here also. Otherwise the citation from the
Psalms would be neither applicable nor appropriate. 60
We need not spend much space on this other than to say:
1. There was no partial fulfillment of Joel 2 at
Pentecost.
2. There was no fulfillment, partial or complete, of
Psalm 2 on this occasion. After all, the nations
did not rage in connection with the death of
Christ, nor on this occasion (cf. v. 25). The
verse speaks of the nations being “gathered
together.” Moreover, the kings of the earth
were not at the crucifixion nor here on this
occasion.
3. Yet the citation from Psalm 2 is both applicable
and appropriate. The spirit noted in Psalm 2 was
there, and in that sense there was an application
of it. What was quoted from Psalm 2 will be
fulfilled in the future.
Acts 7:38
Because the word ecclesia (assembly) translated “church” is
found in Acts 7:38 and Heb. 2:12, the mind that believes the
prophets prophesied about the New Testament ecclesia believe
that the OT saints were in the church. All of this sounds like
a word game, a word game from which dispensational truth
preserves us. But it does remind me of a remark that W.
Kelly made, namely, that ‘though Noah was in an ark, and
Moses was in an ark, we have not yet learned that they are the
same thing.’ Of course they are not the same thing. And
neither is “the assembly in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38) the
same as the assembly which Christ said that He would build
(Matt. 16:18). Nor did Christ say “I am building my
assembly.”
Heb. 3:5, 6 says:
And Moses indeed [was] faithful in all his house, as a
ministering servant, for a testimony of the things to be
spoken after; but Christ, as Son over his house, whose
house are we, if indeed we hold fast the boldness and the
boast of hope firm to the end.
The above cited statement that Moses and Christ are over the
same house is a marvelous statement. It is not only a brazen
62
contradiction of the express distinction and contrast of the
two houses as noted in Hebrews, it shows (1) the blinding
power of the spiritual alchemy and (2) its resultant Judaizing!
Not wishing to give this point any more space, I refer the
reader to the pungent and solid remarks of W. Kelly in The
Bible Treasury 6:222 and 218.
O. T. Allis did not list Acts 7:38 in his chapter appealing to
Acts to prove that the church fulfills the OT prophecies; nor
is it found in his index. In a book by two converts to nondispensationalism, we read:
In Acts 7:38 Stephen, in good Septuagint usage, refers to
the Old Testament people as the “church.” Or as F. F.
Bruce rightly says, “As Moses was with the old church,
61. Curtis I. Crenshaw and Grover E. Grinn III, Dispensationalism Today,
Yesterday, and Tomorrow, Memphis: Footstool Publications, p. 40 (1989).
The cover of this book says “Banner of Truth Magazine: ‘. . . this is the best
discussion of the theology of dispensationalism so far written.” Well, the
reader has here a sample of the caliber of this book.
62. The contrast of the old and the new is characteristic of the book of
Hebrews.
190
Acts 7:48
Acts 8:4-25
Here again O. T. Allis treats his readers to another of his
dicta:
The statement, “howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in
temples made with hands,” is clearly meant to be
axiomatic. It suggests 1 Kgs. 8:27, but is directly
supported by appeal to Isa. 66:1f., which as used by
Stephen can only mean that an earthly temple has no
proper place in the dispensation ushered in by the
preaching of the gospel (cf. Acts 6:14). The conclusion is
unavoidable that Stephen applies Isaiah’s words directly to
63
the Church age.
While it is true that an earthly temple has no place now, that
does not follow from his argument, which, observe, proves
too much -- for these words of O. T. Allis would show that an
earthly temple had no place in the OT either. After all, Isa.
66:1f was true at the time Isaiah wrote. Thus what O. T. Allis
says proves too much. The conclusion that is unavoidable is
that refusal to bow to Rom. 16:25, 26, etc., has caused him
to enunciate a false conclusion. W. Kelly has some excellent
comments on this passage:
Here then, thought the Jew, must Jehovah restrict Himself
to that ‘magnifical’ palace of His holiness. For unbelieving
man must have an idol somewhere. ‘But the Highest
dwelleth not in [places] made with hands; even as the
prophet saith, The heaven [is] My throne, and the earth a
footstool of My feet: what sort of house will ye build Me,
saith [the] Lord, or what [is] My place of rest? Did not My
hand make all these things?’ (vers. 48-50). Superstitious
exaltation of the temple detracts from His glory Who gives
it all its distinctive grandeur. Jehovah did deign to hallow
and glorify it, so that the priests could not stand to minister
by reason of the cloud; for the glory of Jehovah had filled
the house of God. But Solomon himself at that August
consecration had owned that heaven and the heaven of
heavens cannot contain Him, much less the house he had
just built! And so afterward spoke the prophet Isaiah
(66:1), long before Babylon was allowed to burn and
destroy the object of Israel’s pride. It was no afterthought
to console the Jew in his subjection to Gentile masters: so
had Israel’s king spoken to God; and so had God spoken to
Israel long before the Chaldeans had become an adversary
commissioned to chastise their idolatry.
It was right and pious to own the condescending grace
of Jehovah; it was presumptuous to limit His glory to the
temple He was pleased to make His dwelling. The Creator
had created all and was immeasurably above the universe.
From such a point of view what was Jerusalem or the
temple? Who was now in accord with the testimony of
Solomon and of Isaiah? The accusers, or Stephen? The
answer is beyond controversy, and their enmity without
64
excuse.
64. An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. . ., London: Hammond, p. 97,
(1952).
Strangely, O. T. Allis says:
In fact we are told that “they preached the gospel” in
“many villages of the Samaritans” (cf. 5:42, 8:4, 12, 25,
35). This incident reminds us that our Lord preached in
Samaria apparently before He preached in Nazareth, and
that the Samaritans received Him while the men of
Nazareth sought to slay Him. How then could Scofield
say that Acts 10:44 is “one of the pivotal points of
Scripture” because “Heretofore the Gospel has been
offered to Jews only”? Coming after the incidents of
chap. 8 the words, “unto the Jews only” (11:19) suggest
reproach or surprise. Prophecy is not appealed to. But
the trio of Ezek. 16:53-55 strikingly parallels Isa. 19:24f.
65
One is as comprehensive as the other.
I say this is strange because it does not take into account the
work on the cross, the resurrection and glorification of Christ
and the consequent sending of the Holy Spirit. And why is all
this omitted? -- to score a point? He wants to avoid the fact
that in the apostolic preaching (consequent upon what
happened at the cross after the Lord went through Samaria)
this was indeed a pivotal point. The fact is stubborn: the
gospel that the Lord Jesus had died, risen, and ascended
above, with forgiveness of sins preached as a consequence,
had, until this pivotal point, been preached only to Jews.
Nothing here shows that the church is the fulfillment of OT
prophecy.
R. Zorn claims:
In Acts 8:12 the equation of the Kingdom with the Gospel
66
is again made.
The verse reads,
But when they believed Philip announcing the glad tidings
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus
Christ, they were baptized. . . .
W. Kelly translates,
. . . evangelizing about the kingdom of God and the name
of Jesus Christ.
We notice that there is no equation of the kingdom of God
and “the gospel,” as amillennialists claim there is. It is a
mere assertion. Just as others, these Samaritans needed to
know the truth concerning the kingdom, its present and future
phases, and that Jesus was the Messiah in Whom they must
trust. See also the notes on Acts 1:3; 20:24, 25; 28:23, 28.
66. R. Zorn, Church and Kingdom, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, p. 50, (1962).
Acts 8:26-40
Forgive me for referring to this passage -- only because O. T.
Allis refers to it:
Philip’s preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch must be viewed
in the light of the context. It was not merely a case of
“individual work for individuals.” The vast potentialities
of the act, the conversion of a high official of the queen of
Ethiopia, are clearly indicated; and this was brought about
through the applying of Isa. 53 to those events upon which
67
the Christian Church was founded.
Something must be plain here to him, that is not so to me. Is
he implying that because the OT prophets prophesied about
the birth, life, death, resurrection and glorification of Christ,
therefore the church is a subject of OT prophecy? If so, that
would be as absurd as it would be desperate for proof. And
since some brief remarks he makes under the heading “9.
Acts 9:15" are even less relevant (if that is possible) we will
omit them.
Acts 10:34-43
This passage is supposed by some to show that the Lord Jesus
had not preached concerning a temporal kingdom; that is, a
kingdom on earth over which Messiah will reign. Hence,
John Zens wrote:
Acts 10:34-43 -- “The word which God sent to the
children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ . . .
that word was published throughout all Judea, and began
from Galilee, after the baptism that John preached.” (vv.
36-37).
In this context Peter is preaching the gospel of
“repentance and remission of sins” to Gentiles (Luke
24:47). This word, however, had its beginning when it
first went to the Jews. This word began in the public
ministry of Jesus after John’s baptism. Thus this passage
clearly reveals a continuity between the message that
started with Jesus’ preaching and that was now coming to
the Gentiles. This one gospel is called “the kingdom of
God.” 68
Observe that his conclusion rests upon an assumption and
therefore has no more validity than that assumption. The
assumption is that Acts 10:36, 37 means that there was only
one thing that our Lord preached and therefore He did not
preach about the temporal kingdom. Not only is that
assumed, it is in conflict with the facts -- which we have
previously considered.
There is another assumption involved and that is that
“preaching peace” means preaching about a spiritual kingdom
and reign.
68. Dispensationalism, Presbyterian and Reformed, p. 29,
191
But besides this, the statement regarding “continuity” 69
must be considered. The peace of a Christian sealed with the
Spirit, knowing that He is in a forgiven position before God,
could not be true of a person before the death, resurrection
and glorification of Christ, with the Spirit consequently sent
down (John 7:39; Acts 2:32, 33). The sealed saint is now
one Spirit with the Lord (1 Cor. 6). Such was not true before
the cross. Our Lord expressly stated that apart from His
death He abode alone.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat
falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die it
bears much fruit (John 12:24).
This is to be in oneness with Himself as one plant with Him,
as grains upon the resurrected stalk. This is oneness in life -resurrection-life -- which is not at all to say that saints
previously did not have divine life. Of course they did, but
not in oneness with Himself. This latter is “life in
abundance” (John 10:10).
Luke 15 causes us to think of peace. It contains one
parable in three parts and looks on to the son in communion
with the Father, in peace, at His table. But Scripture is clear
that it is by the indwelling Spirit, which before the cross the
children of God did not have (John 7:39), that we cry “Abba
Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Hence our Lord taught His
disciples to pray “Our Father Who art in heaven. . .,” which
was suitable to their then state. Such address does not admit
the same nearness that “Abba Father” does, which address
Scripture shows requires the Spirit of Sonship. Thus we do
not find the Son addressing ‘my Father Who is in heaven’ (or
‘heavenly Father’), nor do we find such a mode of address
used, or taught, in the Epistles.
Neither the word “continuity” nor “discontinuity” is
appropriate.
Christians individually considered and the Church as a
collective body are called by distinctively Jewish names:
“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is
that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he
is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose
praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. 2:28-29).
Hence, it may be dogmatically and, dare we say,
eternally proclaimed: “God is no respecter of persons”
(Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6, Eph. 6:9; Col.
3:11; 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17). 70
With such arguments is the case to be proven? A true Jew is
69. Charles F. Baker, Understanding the Book of Acts, Grand Rapids:
Grace Bible College Publications, 1981, p. 64 says, “Next, Peter preaches
exactly the same word which God had sent to the children of Israel. He was
given nothing new or different to preach to the Gentiles.” This evaluation is
determined by his scheme to find the formation of the body of Christ in Acts
13. So “continuity” is used by him for a totally different purpose than that
of J. Zens.
70. Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided, Tyler:
Institute for Christian Economics, p. 168, 1989.
192
a Jew (an ethnic Jew) in whom the typical meaning of
circumcision is true. It is not merely in the flesh, but in the
Jew’s heart and spirit. The passage does not teach that a
Christian is a spiritual Jew or a “true Jew.” Rom. 2:17-29 is
expressly address to Jews. A saved Jew is a “true Jew.”
And what does the fact that God is not a respecter of
persons prove? -- that God is a respecter of persons if a
material temple exists? That is, does this fact prove that there
can be no future material temple -- no future kingdom with
such a temple -- and therefore the OT prophecies concern the
church? If that is what is meant, would it not be so that in
OT times while a temple stood, God was a respecter of
persons? But see 2 Chron. 19:7 and Job 37:24. Unless we
are to believe that God was once a respecter of persons and
then He changed, the last sentence in the above citation is, at
best, irrelevant.
And now we come to Acts 10:43: 71
To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone that
believes on him will receive through his name remission
of sins.
You see how easy it is to find proof that the church is the
subject of the OT prophecies? Does it not leap out of every
page of the NT? And must not ‘dispensationalists’ be
singularly dull to not see this abundance of (alleged) proof?
In reality, however, the OT prophecies refer to the
millennium and its inauguration. The fact stated in Acts
10:43 is also true meanwhile. In this connection, consider
Eph. 1:9-12:
. . . having made known to us the mystery of his will,
according to his good pleasure which he purposed in
himself for [the] administration of the fullness of times;
to head up all things in the Christ, the things in the
heavens and the things upon the earth; in him, in whom
we have also obtained an inheritance, being marked out
beforehand according to the purpose of him who works all
things according to the counsel of his own will, that we
should be to [the] praise of his glory who have pre-trusted
in the Christ. . . . .
Eph. 1:10 refers to the time of the millennium when Christ
heads up both the heavenly sphere and the earthly. But we
now have an inheritance in Him (v. 11); we who have “pretrusted in the Christ” (v. 12). ‘Pre’ what? We have trusted
ahead of the period of the administration of the fullness of
times. Then, everyone who believes on Christ will receive
through His name remission of sins. However, there are
many who have trusted in that name ahead of that time. They
have “pre-trusted in the Christ” as Cornelius did. Thus, Acts
10:43 has an application now.
71. See O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 143, which need not be
quoted.
Acts 13
ACTS 13:27
. . . for those who dwell in Jerusalem and their rulers,
not having known him, have fulfilled also the voices of
the prophets which are read on every sabbath, [by]
judging [him].
J. Zens remarked:
How can an understanding of the Old Testament that is
designated as “blind” be taken as a proper hermeneutical
[interpretive] method? 72
We have considered this kind of reasoning previously. The
Jews believed in a literal kingdom and killed the Lord Jesus -therefore literal interpretation is supposed to be a false method
of interpretation. However, I could suppose that the objector
would say the literal interpretation would be correct regarding
the prophecies concerning the birthplace, birth, life, death,
resurrection and exaltation of the Messiah. Those who
rejected Him expected a literal kingdom. They chose to
believe what suited them and disregarded the rest (as many
professed Christians do now). The Lord even rebuked the
two on the way to Emmaus: “O senseless and slow of heart
to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not
Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his
glory?” (Luke 24:25, 26). Those who had accepted the Lord
Jesus did so because God granted them that faith (John 6:44),
yet here we see a defective understanding even so. The
“hermeneutical method” was correct, but the selective
application of it (by those who rejected Christ) to suit their
desires was their undoing. They did not “believe in all that
the prophets have spoken!”
ACTS 13:32-41
And we declare unto you the glad tidings of the promise
made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this to us their
children, having raised up Jesus; as it is also written in
the second psalm, Thou art my Son: this day have I
begotten thee. But that he raised him from among [the]
dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke thus: I
will give to you the faithful mercies of David. Wherefore
also he says in another, Thou wilt not suffer thy gracious
one to see corruption. For David indeed, having in his
own generation ministered to the will of God, fell asleep,
and was added to his fathers and saw corruption. But he
whom God raised up did not see corruption. Be it known
unto you, therefore, brethren, that through this man
remission of sins is preached to you, and from all things
from which ye could not be justified in the law of Moses,
in him every one that believes is justified. See therefore
that that which is spoken in the prophets do not come
upon [you], Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish;
for I work a work in your days, a work which ye will in
no wise believe if one declare it to you (Acts 13:32-41).
72. Dispensationalism, p. 30.
Verses 32 and 33 do not refer to the resurrection of Christ. 73
The raising up of Jesus refers to His first advent, as Zacharias
recognized (Luke 1:67-69).
In v. 23 we see the meaning of v. 33. Moreover, Acts
3:22, 26 and 7:37 say the same thing, namely, that God raised
Him up -- not meaning resurrection. What God had fulfilled
was not the OT prophecies concerning the kingdom, but the
bringing forth of the Messiah.
73. J. Zens, as others, says,
As we have seen, the Dispensationalists teach that Israel’s real
fulfillment lies in the future, when the alleged unfulfilled promises
are confirmed after the rapture of the Church. But verse 32 points
out that the “hope of Israel” has already been accomplished in the
Resurrection (Dispensationalism, p. 30).
Commenting on the fact that Acts 13:32, 33 does not refer to resurrection,
W. Kelly remarked:
Indeed it is surprising that any intelligent and careful reader ever
understood the passage otherwise. For it is as certain as it is plain
that, to God’s raising up the Messiah according to promise and the
prophecy of the second psalm, verse 34 appends as another and
still more momentous truth that God raised Him up ‘from the
dead’. It is no mere reasoning on the verse before, no epexegetic
explanation, but a further teaching of the highest value. Hence it
is thus introduced, ‘And’ or ‘But that He raised Him from the
dead, no more to return unto corruption, He hath spoken thus. .
.’ Calvin accordingly is justified in his statement (Opera vi.
Comm. in loco) that the word ‘raised up’ has a wider significance
than where repeated just after. For it is meant that Christ was
divinely ordained and as it were by God’s hand brought forth into
light that He might fulfil the office of Messiah; as scripture here
and there also shows us kings and prophets raised up by the Lord.
Acts 2:22, 26; 7:37, are clear cases of this usage of ‘raised up’
in the same Book; so that the Authorized Version in the wake of
Tyndale is not safely to be defended in going out of the way to
insinuate resurrection into verse 33. ‘Raised up’ is correct;
‘raised again’, might have been said, if the text had certainly
pointed, as it does not really at all, to the resurrection. But
‘raised up again’ is unjustifiable. In any case the compound can
only yield either ‘up’ or ‘again’, not both; and here we have seen
on good and cogent grounds that ‘up’ is right, ‘again’
inadmissible, because rising from the dead is not intended in verse
33.
ACTS 13:34-41
The claim is made that:
Further, the Resurrection is said to be a fulfillment of the
“sure mercies of David.” It is on the basis of this
recently accomplished promise that the Jews are to repent
and believe the gospel. God’s dealings with Israel have
not been “postponed.” He has at this time fulfilled the
promise “to the fathers for us their children.” 74
It is very bold to say that this scripture says that the fulfillment
of the sure mercies of David was accomplished. It says no
such thing. It is obvious on the very face of the text that
Peter is citing both Isa. 55:3 (v. 34) and Psalm 16:10 (v. 35)
to show that the Messiah would rise from the dead. It is a
myth fathered by the alchemizing of the OT prophecies that
Peter here, or anywhere else, was citing the OT to show the
Jews that the OT kingdom prophecies were fulfilled or
fulfilling. He was, as before, proving from Scripture that
Jesus was the Christ and that the Messiah must needs rise
from the dead. Of course, in God’s purpose, the resurrection
is a necessary element in God’s eventual fulfilling of the sure
mercies of David. Christ’s work on the cross and His
resurrection is the foundation of all blessing.
In v. 40, 41 Peter warned the listeners to beware lest
judgment fall upon them as Hab. (1:5) had warned his hearers
in his day concerning the execution of God’s judgment upon
them through His use of the Chaldeans. Our Lord had
already warned of judgment upon Jerusalem (Matt. 22:1-14;
Luke 19:43, 44; 21:20, 24; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16). Worse,
of course, will be the future judgment to fall in the time of
Jacob’s trouble when worse shall befall them than what even
Adolf Hitler has done (Matt. 24:21; Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1).
There is nothing here that shows that the kingdom prophesied
in the OT began at Pentecost.
It would not have been necessary or advisable to spend
argument on the question, if Dean Alford and Canon Cook,
following Hammond, Meyer, and others, had not unwittingly
played into the hands of enemies who ridicule this very
misapprehension of Psalm 2:7, for which not Paul but his
expounders are responsible. It has also been noticed that the
addition of ‘now’ in the English Version of verse 34 is not only
needless but misleading, as it might imply a previous turn to
corruption. Here too Tyndale misled all the public Protestant
versions since his day, even to the Revised one.
Psalm 2:7 is quoted then for Christ as Son of God in this
world. It is neither His eternal Sonship, as some of the earlier
Christian writers conceived, nor His resurrection, as the
misapprehension of Acts 13:33 was used to teach. His birth in
time as Messiah is the point, ‘Thou art My Son: this day have I
begotten Thee.’
(An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, in loco).
193
74. J. Zens, Dispensationalism, p. 30.
194
Chapter 4.6: Acts 15: The Tabernacle of David
195
Chapter 4.6
Acts 15:
The Tabernacle of David
Introduction
We have now come to Acts 15 which has been quite a
battleground. Its importance is evidenced by O. T. Allis, an
amillennialist, giving to it over five pages. He remarked:
It is quite understandable that Darby and the Brethren
seem to have regarded this passage as more of a liability
for their parenthesis theory than an asset. They could
admit only an analogy between the calling of the Gentiles
in the Church age and the gathering of the Gentiles in the
millennial age. But gradually it came to be regarded as of
such great importance, that Scofield did not hesitate to say
of it, as we have seen: “Dispensationally, this is the most
important passage in the NT.” 75
Regarding the “analogy” view, the following comments are interesting.
Though the revised Scofield Reference Bible maintains the “plan
of the ages” interpretation, it no longer claims that this is the most
important passage for dispensationalism. And it has inserted the
“analogy” interpretation surreptitiously alongside the other more
famous interpretation. In the 1980 revision of his book
Millennialism, Feinberg seems to vacillate on the passage. While
leaving basically unchanged one favorable discussion of the
Scofield interpretation, in another place he favors the analogy
view of the earlier Brethren, saying it is “correct.” Toussaint,
writing in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament,
mentions the classic Scofieldian interpretation as a view
“commonly held by premillenarians,” but then he suggests the
analogy view, which is presented by Sunukjian in The Bible
Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament and by Elliott Johnson in
the Walvoord Festschrift. While admitting analogy, all these
expositors have consistently denied any real fulfillment of Amos
9 in the early church.
Some other contemporary
dispensationalists, however, have argued for some measure of
fulfillment in the church which does not deny a future fulfillment
of Amos 9 in the millennium.
Many other passages could be examined to show that
dispensationalism is not a fixed set of confessional interpretations.
Hermeneutical development is taking place. Obviously some
hermeneutical consistency must exist in order for different
expositors and theologians to maintain the name
“dispensationalist” (Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1988, p. 263).
I suggest that the “hermeneutical development” is actually dispensationally
(continued...)
Of course this is not the most “dispensationally . . . important
passage in the N. T.” For example, consider the importance
of Rom. 16:25, 26, Col. 1:25, 26 and Eph. 3:9. Obviously,
such scriptures settle most of these questions for those who
bow to what they expressly state.
On the other hand, many anti-dispensationalists believe
Acts 15 establishes the notion that (contrary to what the above
three scriptures show) the OT prophets prophesied concerning
the church. They believe that “the tabernacle of David”
refers to the church. It is alleged that David’s fallen
tabernacle was rebuilt, or began to be rebuilt, at Pentecost.
What Is The Issue in Acts 15?
The reason for which this meeting at Jerusalem took place,
the question which was before this meeting, was this:
And certain persons, having come down from Judæa,
taught the brethren, If ye shall not have been circumcised
according to the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
A commotion therefore having taken place, and no small
discussion on the part of Paul and Barnabas against them,
they arranged that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others
from amongst them, should go up to Jerusalem to the
apostles and elders about this question (Acts 15:1-3).
The question, then, concerned whether or not the Gentile
converts were to be under the law, to become, as it were,
Jews, instead of being blessed apart from the law. James
quoted Amos to bring before the brethren that God would
bless Gentiles in connection with the Kingdom, without their
being circumcised, and applied the principle of this to God’s
working now.
75. (...continued)
retrograde in effect. The return by some to what JND taught on Acts 15 is
commendable. What “dispensationalists” need to do is to leap-frog right over
C. I. Scofield to dispensational truth as scripturally taught by J. N. Darby.
196
James’ Quotation For The Issue
In that day will I raise up the
tabernacle of David which is
fallen, and close up the
breaches thereof; and I will
raise up its ruins, and I will
build it as in the days of old:
that they may possess the
remnant of Edom, and all the
nations upon whom my name
is called, saith Jehovah who
doeth this (Amos 9:11, 12).
And after they had held their
peace, James answered,
saying, Brethren, listen to me:
Simon has related how God
first visited to take out of [the]
nations a people for his name.
And with this agree the words
of the prophets; as it is
written: After these things I
will return, and will rebuild
the tabernacle of David which
is fallen, and will rebuild its
ruins, and will set it up, so
that the residue of men may
seek out the Lord, and all the
nations on whom my name is
invoked, saith [the] Lord, who
does these things known from
eternity (Acts 15:13-18).
12 is millennial. It is quoted in order to prove that there is
such a thing as Gentile blessing without circumcision being
imposed. What Peter said, says James, agrees with this.
Therefore there can be no ground of objection to Gentile
blessing now; and they are not to be placed under the law (as
the postmillennialist Reconstructionists want to do with all
Christians).
Furthermore, James, by the Spirit, came to a judgment
(v. 19) regarding the subject of dispute (v. 1). On the basis
of the quotation he judged that the nations must not be
troubled about circumcision. How so? The prophets who
spoke of Gentile blessing did not say that the Gentiles needed
to be circumcised. “Wherefore I judge, not to trouble those
who from the nations turn to God” (v. 19) he says. So he
found that prophecy about the Gentiles in the millennium was
relevant to the subject of dispute.
Observe that God’s name has never yet been invoked upon
the nations.
The four things written to the Gentile believer have to do
with matters that pre-date the law. Excellent remarks on
them are found in the Synopsis by J. N. Darby, vol. 4, pp.
40, 41 (Stow Hill ed.).
The answer to the issue, namely, should the Gentile converts
be placed under the law, is this, as James said:
Wherefore I judge, not to trouble those who from the
nations turn to God; but to write to them to abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what
is strangled, and from blood.
For Moses, from
generations of old, has in every city those who preach
him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath (Acts
15:19-21).
The answer is no, the Gentile converts were not to be placed
under law. This is the subject, not that the church is the
rebuilt tabernacle of David. Neither Amos, nor other
prophets who spoke of Gentile blessing, who spoke of God’s
name being invoked on Gentiles, indicated in any way that
those Gentiles should be placed under the law. James quoted
the passage for one point alone, i.e., “and all the nations upon
whom my name is invoked” (Acts 15:17), for the application
of it to confirm what Peter said. Amos 9:11, 12 is millennial
in fulfillment as are all the prophecies of the kingdom.
Having clearly seen what the issue was, we may now turn to
examine what has been imported into the passage by
antidispensationalism that sees the church everywhere in the
O. T. prophecies concerning the kingdom.
After Peter, Barnabas and Paul showed how God had
wrought, James noted what Scripture had to say relative to the
dispute and did so in a way so as to give a judgment. He did
not say that God visited the Gentiles (through Peter) in order
that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. He did say that “with
this agree the words of the prophets.” Call it an “analogy,”
if you will. Often enough the prophets prophesied Gentile
blessing and he selected one quotation in order to prove it,
stating that the prophets agree. What we find in Amos 9:11,
Taking Out of The Nations
a People For His Name
THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORK NOW AND IN THE FUTURE
God’s present taking out from the Gentiles a people for His
name cannot be the fulfillment of what Amos prophesied.
No, it cannot even be a partial fulfillment because the
character of the two works are different.
#
Now. Though individual Gentiles had been brought into
blessing before, Acts 10 records the first instance of God
taking out of the nations a people for His name (Acts
15:13, 14). It should be noticed that this describes the
character of God’s work now.
#
Future. Observe carefully that the quotation says, “and
all the nations on whom my name is invoked.” This
shows that in the future the work is different than now.
God will not at that time take out of the nations a people
for His name. The Gentiles will generally receive
blessing, but Israel will then be Ammi (my people) in the
special sense, not so the Gentiles.
IS THE PRESENT WORK AN INITIAL FULFILLMENT OF AMOS
9:11, 12?
How do Covenantizing Dispensationalists handle this in an
effort to have a partial fulfillment under the allegedly present
Davidic phase of the Kingdom? They blur the distinction just
made by fastening on the fact that Gentile blessing is apart
from the law in both cases. The fact that this is a common
element does not prove their point, and certainly does not
eliminate the essential distinction in God’s workings in the
Chapter 4.6: Acts 15: The Tabernacle of David
two cases. And that essential distinction means that the
present work is not a fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy. Amos
did not prophesy that God was going to take out from the
Gentiles a people for His name. James made an application
of something to a matter before them. 76 We have the same
phenomena here as we saw regarding pressing an initial
fulfillment in Acts 2, where we saw that what resulted was -upon all flesh = upon some Jews only. Here, it is -- take out
of the nations a people for his name = all the nations upon
whom my name is invoked. And so Darrell L. Bock wrote:
. . . (Acts 15:14). Such activity was seen to be a part and
parcel of the plan of the eschatological kingdom, as
reflected in Isaiah 49:6 and Amos 9:11-12 (see Acts
13:46-48; 15:14-18). 77
Would we not expect him to refer to the strongest proofs from
the OT To show that the prophets spoke of a calling out from
the Gentiles a people for God’s name? Read them. And
Kenneth L. Barker wrote:
. . . what happened in Acts 15 constitutes a stage in the
progressive fulfillment of the entire prophecy in Amos 9
(cf. Acts 15:12-15). It is an instance of direct fulfillment,
but not the final and complete fulfilment . . . . 78
Now note well that if the calling out from the Gentiles a people
for His name is “not the final and complete fulfillment, then
God will do this also in a fuller way in the millennial Kingdom.
And what confusion results? Why that God will have His
ancient people before Him as Ammi (my people; Hos. 2:1) and
also a people taken out from the Gentiles for His name. Thus
there will be two peoples of God.
Moreover, if silence was not really kept in the OT
concerning the mystery, then it also should be in accordance
with the David covenant and be fulfilled in the millennium,
while presently it is in partial fulfilment , and to have the final
and complete fulfilment in the millennium. That would mean
Jews and Gentiles in one body in the millennium when the
nation of Israel is Ammi -- the people of God. But then there
will also be a fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy, which, in this
system, is God taking out of the nations a people for His name.
So there results two peoples of God, while at the same time
they form one body. The notion of partial fulfillment for the
purpose of lowering the heavenly church down to earth, and
76. Observe how Robert L. Saucy, a Covenantizing Pretribulationist, slides
past the distinction Scriptural makes:
Amos looked forward to the times of the Messiah, which included
the salvation of Gentiles without their becoming part of Israel.
These times have arrived with Jesus, and the new work of God
indicates that salvation is going out to the Gentiles apart from
keeping the law. All this is evident in God’s having rebuilt the
fallen dynasty of David in Jesus as the Christ (Ac 2:36) (The Case
for progressive Dispensationalism, p. 79).
These writers, like those who espouse covenant theology, have not bowed to
Rom. 16:25, Col. 1:26 and Eph. 3:9 -- which would have preserved them
from covenantizing.
77. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 256.
78. In, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, p. 327.
197
making all Christ’s activities Davidic in character, is at the root
of the utter confusion. But there is an attempt, based on the
words “this” and “agree,” that we must look at before leaving
these points.
The only likely antecedent to “this” is the reference in
verse 14 to the Gentile inclusion that Simeon had
expressed. 79
This is a statement meaning that we have here a partial
fulfilment of Amos -- though, of course, in none of the cases
claimed do we read that “this is a (partial) fulfillment.” The
fact is that the prophets nowhere said that God would do a
work of calling out from the Gentiles a people for His name.
Calling attention to the word agree (sympshonousin):
. . . means “to match,” “harmonize,” or “to fit” (Matt.
18:19; 20:2, 13; Luke 5:36; Acts 5:9; related terms are
in 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 6:15) . . . 80
He believes that this indicates an initial fulfillment. However,
the agreement, the harmony, consists only in the fact that the
name of the Lord is called upon those whom God is calling out
of the Gentiles to be a people for his name and, in the
millennium, on “all the nations on whom my name is
invoked.”
So, the calling out of the Gentiles now is consonant with,
in harmony with, but not an initial fulfilment of, what the
prophets spoke of as the invocation of God’s name upon
Gentile nations when Messiah reigns. This leaves untouched
the fact that a calling out from the Gentiles a people for His
name is not a work spoken of by the OT prophets.
Also note well how God’s activity is described. He is
taking out of the nations a people for His name, thus leaving
the nations where they were.
It is contrary to the
postmillennial scheme wherein, in effect, all the nations
become a people for His name before Christ returns. Rather,
God’s people are now taken out of the nations. This is
separative.
The Tabernacle of David (v. 16)
Using language typical of spiritual alchemy, R. Zorn says:
James, therefore, makes the building of the tabernacle of
David, not a future kingdom, but a reference to Christ’s
present rule upon the throne of David as the rule began
with His exaltation and now comes to expression in His
Church and its labors for Him. “Edom,” too, no longer
appears in James’ quotation as it does in the original since,
in consonance with the manner of James’ interpretation, it
has symbolic reference to the enemies of God’s people, or
the Gentiles in general, who were now by conversion
becoming a part of new Israel. With this principle of
interpretation established, we may also understand the rest
of the prophecy as a reference to the Messianic age, which
is not a future Millennium, but the present dispensation.
79. Darrell L. Bock in A Case for Premilleninalism, p. 196.
80. Ibid.,
198
Once more we have an example of symbolic language
(verse 13) and concepts of religious significance current
with the prophet (verses 14-15) by which he clothed the
spiritual realities of the messianic salvation with its glorious
prospects. 81
Is that what Amos meant by what he said? Did Amos
understand His words to speak of the Church? or of literal
Israel? And were his hearers meant by God to understand by
this a prophecy of the church? The answer is no (Rom. 16:25;
Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26). In this alchemizing system one would
think that OT prophecies had no function for OT hearers.
What benefit were the hearers to derive from the prophecies?
None, if the prophets spoke of the church -- about which they
could know nothing.
W. Kelly remarked:
On the other hand Jehovah has not yet raised up the
tabernacle of David; nor is this at all intimated by James’s
quotation of the passage. Neither he nor any other apostle
ever says that the church of God is the same thing as the
booth of David. The whole system which identifies them is
foreign and opposed to scripture. It is only the allegorical
habit of the fathers which invented the fiction that Zion or
Jerusalem, that Judah or Israel, mean the church. But this
error lowers our own dignity, and deprives the ancient
people of that hope for which God’s providence reserves
them spite of their actual unbelief. Assuredly God will
bless the Jews by and by, and His name will be called upon
the Gentiles. Even the most obstinate of Pharisees could
not gainsay James’s proof of this. If then God were pleased
to call His name on Gentiles now by the gospel, who can
deny the principle if he believe the prophets? Their own
scriptures agree to this, and oppose the narrow-mindedness
which would convert them practically into Jews in order to
be called by His name. No Israelite could have conceived
that God had then raised the fallen hut of David; but he
could not gainsay that God spoke of all the nations on which
His name should be called when that day comes. It was not
inconsistent but in keeping with this, if as Gentiles they
were called by His name now. James does not speak of this
or any other prophetic citation being fulfilled at present. He
simply quotes the broad fact from the Septuagint version, as
agreeing with the principle generally laid down by the
prophets that all the nations should be called by Jehovah’s
name. This is indeed the characteristic of the millennial
day, when all Israel shall be saved, and shall inherit the
remnant even of their bitterest foe as well as of all the
Gentiles. Undoubtedly, when it is fulfilled, the subjection
of the nations will be for ever, and the kingdom of Jehovah
over all the earth, though it be of course the kingdom of the
heavens. The apostle cites this then only for present use in
sanctioning the reception of Gentiles without circumcision,
which it did unanswerably. 82
The fallen tabernacle of David will be restored at the restoring
of all things, the things spoken of by the prophets (Acts 3:1926). Amos said its breaches would be closed up. It refers to
the Kingdom when the “Lord God shall give to Him the throne
of David His Father; and he shall reign over {not the church,
but} the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32, 33). Meanwhile, he is on
the Father’s throne (Rev. 3:21). The Son of man’s throne is
future (Matt. 25:31). All the talk about Christ being on
David’s throne now is baseless and flies in the face of what
Scripture does say about His throne.
As to the breaches, one of them is the division of the tribes
when Rehoboam was King. Another breach was the setting up of
Dan and Bethel as places of worship -- undermining the truth that
there was one center for Israel’s worship.
What About The Words “After This”?
It is a mistake to take the words “after this” as if Amos was
speaking of the present calling out of the Gentiles, and that
“after this” calling out, then so and so would happen. Amos
did not prophesy about the church. Nor was James setting
forth a sequence of what God was doing. None of these
things has anything to do with the issue.
The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) has
replaced the words in the Hebrew of Amos 9, “in that day”
with the words “after these things I will return” as a number
of commentators point out. For James, the Septuagint was
sufficient for his use concerning the point at issue. The
phrase “after these things I will return” has no bearing on his
point. Nor is this passage an endorsement by James of the
Septuagint in all its deviations from the Hebrew text, but he
cited it as sufficient for his point.
Moreover, that phrase has another meaning than that
Amos is speaking of the present period.
And it shall come to pass, after I have plucked them
[Israel] up, I will return, and have compassion on them,
and will bring them back . . . (Jer. 12:15).
If verses 8-10 of Amos 9 are read with Amos 9:11, 12, the
parallelism with Jer. 12:15 should be obvious. It is after God’s
governmental ways have done their work on Israel that He will
return to them in blessing. It is after the Lo-Ammi period
pronounced by Hosea. Then shall the tabernacle of David be
rebuilt, and the breaches thereof be closed up.
Many quotations of the OT in the NT are used as this one
from Amos 9 is used. It is in the gospels that we principally
find a different use of quotations from the OT; namely, to
show a fulfillment. A few examples are Matt. 1:22; 2:15, 17,
23; 8:17; etc. Acts 1:16 is one of the latest. However,
subsequently OT passages are cited for a principle, or for
something analogous. Thus, Acts 15:14-18 is not said to be a
fulfillment. Such passages show that what has transpired is not
inconsistent with the OT; or that the OT leaves room for what
God is now doing, though the OT prophets did not foresee this.
The passages themselves are millennial in fulfillment. See
Rom. 15:8-12, for example.
81. R. Zorn, Church and Kingdom, p. 106.
82. Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Minor Prophets, pp. 162-164.
Chapter 4.7
Acts 16-28
advent. . . . 84
Acts 19:8
And entering into the synagogue, he spoke boldly during
three months, reasoning and persuading [the things]
concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 19:8).
We have observed elsewhere that the faithful remnant who had
accepted the Lord Jesus were expecting the establishment of the
Kingdom. The death of the Lord Jesus had dashed their hopes
as we see in Luke 24. But He spoke to the two on the way to
Emmaus regarding the sufferings and the glory to follow (Luke
24:25-27). These Jews to whom Paul preached in the
synagogue, I suggest, heard the same truth. Christ must suffer
first and the kingdom will yet come. W. Kelly remarked:
This involved his opening to them the sufferings of Christ
and the glories after these. It never occurred to his mind
to disparage that kingdom, still less to deny it, because of
higher possessions and richer grace in the great mystery as
to Christ, and as to the assembly (Eph. 5:32) meanwhile
revealed for the Christian. Even salvation as now opened
in the gospel of God’s grace has depths beyond the
kingdom. 83
Acts 20:24, 25; 28:23, 31
But I make no account of [my] life [as] dear to myself, so
that I finish my course, and the ministry which I have
received of the Lord Jesus to testify the glad tidings of the
grace of God. And now, behold, I know that ye all,
among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom [of
God], shall see my face no more (Acts 20:24, 25).
And having appointed him a day many came to him
to the lodging, to whom he expounded, testifying of the
kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus,
both from the law of Moses and the prophets, from early
morning to evening (Acts 28:23).
. . . preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the
things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom
unhinderedly (Acts 28:31).
Long ago, W. Kelly wrote:
It will be noticed that the gospel is here designated ‘the
glad tidings of the grace of God.’ This appears to be the
most comprehensive title given to it in Scripture.
Elsewhere the apostle speaks of it as ‘the gospel of the
glory of Christ’, where its heavenly side is meant to be
made prominent. Again, he speaks of it as ‘the gospel of
God’, when its source in divine love is pointed out.
Furthermore, we hear of ‘the gospel of Christ’, where He
is in view through Whom alone the glad tidings become
possible from God to man. In the Gospels we read of
‘the gospel of the kingdom’, looking on to Messiah in
power and glory: in the Revelation, of the ‘everlasting
gospel’, the revelation of the bruised Seed bruising the
serpent’s head. Each has its main or distinctive meaning;
but as none can be, apart from Christ, so none of them
appears to be so full as ‘the gospel of the grace of God.’
Nor is any other designation of it more than this last in
keeping with the Acts of the Apostles, as well as with that
apostle’s heart who was now addressing the Ephesian
elders. The person and the work of the Lord Jesus are
fully supposed although not expressed by it; for in
whom, or through whom, can God’s grace shine out,
save in Him or by Him?
‘And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom
I went about preaching the kingdom 85 [of God], shall see
my face no more’ (ver. 25). It is his farewell. His work,
as to presence in their midst, was ended.
Here we have another and distinct topic, and one
that is apt to be overlooked in modern preaching, viz.,
‘The kingdom.’ He who examines the Acts of the
Apostles will find how large a place it occupies in the
preaching, not of Peter only but of Paul, and, we may be
assured, of all the other servants of the Lord in those
early days. It is a grave blank where the kingdom is left
out as it is now. Nor is it only that the future according
to God is habitually lost to the faith of saints through the
unfaithfulness of modern preachers, but thereby the
gospel of God’s grace also suffers. For in that case there
is sure to be confusion, which, mingling both characters,
R. Zorn asserts that:
These three references [Acts 20:24,25; 28:23; 28:31],
therefore, as do all in Acts without exception, make the
Kingdom of God synonymous with the rule of Christ now
begun and coming to consummation only at His second
83. An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 281.
85. The best and oldest MSS. and Versions, save the Vulg. etc., read
simply ‘the kingdom.’ Others add ‘of God’, which is meant if not
expressed; others ‘of Jesus’, and ‘of the Lord Jesus’.
199
200
never enjoys the simple and full truth of either: 86 for the
kingdom will be the triumph of righteousness by power
when Christ appears in His glory. A truth it was, most
familiar, to those who were bred in the constant and
glorious vision of Old Testament prophecy. Christianity,
though it open to us heavenly things, was never intended
to enfeeble this prospect; rather should it enable the
believer to taste its blessing more, as well by imparting a
deeper intelligence of its principles as by bringing in the
heavenly glory. We can enjoy it in an incomparably
larger and more distinct way; and we have its principles
explained by a deeper and fuller view of its basis in the
reconciling work of the Lord Jesus on the cross.
. . . Twice at least (vers. 20, 27) he disclaims
expressly that reserve which some bearing the Christian
name have not been ashamed to avow as a merit learnt
from Him Whose death rent the veil, and Who puts all
true followers of His in the light of life, the light which
makes everything manifest. Walking in darkness now that
the True Light shines is a walk in the flesh without God.
With such doctrine no wonder that ‘the hungry sheep look
up and are not fed.’
It is a mistake that ‘all the counsel of God’ means no
more than the plan of God for saving men unfolded in the
gospel. ‘The gospel’ is indeed the preaching of salvation
in a dead and risen Savior; ‘the kingdom’, whether
morally or in its fully manifested form, has its own distinct
force in God’s reign, as we have seen; ‘all the counsel of
God’ rises still higher and embraces His purpose in its
utmost extent (e.g., Eph. 1:9-12). 87
Acts 24:14,15
But this I avow to thee, that in the way which they call
sect, so I serve my fathers’ God, believing all things
which are written throughout the law, and in the prophets;
having hope towards God, which they themselves also
receive, that there is to be a resurrection both of just and
unjust (Acts 24:14, 15).
I have pointed out that anti-millennialists Judaize. Regarding
the above text, J. Zens asserts:
The Jews were accusing Paul of being an apostate
Israelite. But Paul confounds them by asserting a close
continuity between his life as a Christian and the Jewish
hope. Paul worships the same God, holds to the same
canonical books, and cherishes the same hope of
resurrection as the Jews. The apostle saw that Christianity
was nothing but the genuine fulfillment of all that was
promised to the Old Testament fathers. 88
I hold to dispensational truth, yet I serve the God of Paul’s
fathers, believe all things written throughout the law, and in the
86. Thus Calvin (Opera 6, 186): ‘Regnum Dei iterum vocatur evangelii
doctrina, quae regnum Dei in hoc mundo inchoat, homines renovando in
imaginem Dei, donec tandem in ultima resurrectione compleatur.’ (The
doctrine of the gospel is again called God’s kingdom, which begins God’s
kingdom in this world by renewing men into God’s image, till at length it
be complete in the last resurrection.) Calvin was a pious and able man;
but the value of his commentary on scripture has been extravagantly
overrated. Of course, not a little turns on the spiritual intelligence of him
who speaks.
87. W. Kelly, An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 305-307.
88. Dispensationalism, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978, p. 17.
prophets, having hope towards God that there is to be a
resurrection both of just and unjust. I see also that it is spiritual
alchemy to say that “Christianity was nothing but the genuine
fulfillment of all that was promised to the Old Testament
fathers.” Obviously, the above text offers not an atom of proof
for J. Zens conclusion. And this brings us to an objection of
O. T. Allis, based on what Paul did not say. This objection,
taken together with J. Zens’ comments, illustrates the capacity
of the anti-millennialists to wring blood out of a stone. O. T.
Allis wrote:
If Paul really believed that the Church was a mystery
parenthesis unknown to the prophets, here would have
been a fine opportunity to preach Dispensational truth.
He might have explained to Felix and the notables who
were present just how the Church age was to be fitted in,
as such a parenthesis, between the Davidic kingdom of
the past and the promised kingdom of the future. It
would certainly have made things much easier for him,
had he been able to declare that what he was preaching,
however offensive to Jewish pride, was simply a
temporary interruption of the fulfillment of the kingdom
promises to Israel. Why did he not do so, if he really
believed this to be the case?
Well, if Paul does not say what O. T. Allis thinks appropriate,
why, then, clearly, it is not the truth. With such interpretive
principles as we see at work in these two writers, antimillennialism will clearly be triumphant. But, then, so will
many other doctrines and notions fare equally well. At any
rate, mystery truth was hardly suitable fare for the governor or
for the occasion. Where, in Acts do we have a record at all of
the preaching of the mystery? Why demand it here, then,
unless for a theological figment? Let us simply receive the
Word as God has given it.
Acts 26:6-8
And now I stand to be judged because of the hope of the
promise made by God to our fathers, to which our whole
twelve tribes serving incessantly day and night hope to
arrive; about which hope, O king, I am accused of [the]
Jews. Why should it be judged a thing incredible in your
sight if God raises the dead? (Acts 26:6-8).
Reading v. 8 one can understand why some would think that
“the hope of the promise” referred to resurrection 89. But I do
not think that is correct. Acts 13:32, 33 says:
And we declare unto you the glad tidings of the promise
made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this to us their
children, having raised up Jesus; as it is also written in
the second psalm, Thou art my Son: this day have I
begotten thee.
“Having raised up Jesus” refers to His coming into the world,
not resurrection. The hope noted in Acts 26:6,7 is the
Messiah:
And also the Hope of Israel will not lie nor repent; for
he is not a man, that he should repent (1 Sam. 15:29)
89. Certainly not “primarily to the Abrahamic covenant, with its definite
promise of blessing.”
In Acts 13:34 Paul speaks of the resurrection of Christ and then
he quotes an OT prophecy that bears on this. And in Acts 26:8
he speaks of the resurrection also. He then proceeds to tell
how he saw Christ in the glory. Neither in Acts 13 nor Acts
26 do we get the subject of the kingdom introduced, whether
spiritual or material.
Certainly Israelites were hoping for the restoration of the
kingdom to Israel, but that is not the point here. The Hope of
Israel is Jesus, “Jehovah, Savior.”
Of course, it was the purpose of God that this Messiah
would be the sin-bearer, thus laying the righteous basis for all
blessing that comes from Him. This necessitates, too, His
resurrection; and so the sure mercies of David will be made
good to the house of Israel.
Acts 26:22, 23
Having therefore met with [the] help which is from God,
I have stood firm unto this day, witnessing both to small
and great, saying nothing else than those things which both
the prophets and Moses have said should happen, namely,]
whether Christ should suffer; whether he first, through
resurrection of [the] dead, should announce light both to
the people and to the nations (Acts 26:22, 23).
Now we have arrived at a text triumphantly put forth as:
201
. . . the mystery which [has been] hidden from ages
and from generations, but has now been made manifest to
his saints (Col. 1:26).
These scriptures, received into the soul as God gave them,
destroys the anti-millennialist position. How dare he assert, in
defiance of the express statements of Scripture that Paul “had
been preaching nothing which Moses and the prophets had not
foretold.” And listen to what he said concerning J. N. Darby.
In commenting on this passage in Acts, all Darby has to
say is this: “He does not speak of the assembly [the
Church] -- that was a doctrine for instruction, and not a
part of his history.” That a man of Darby’s mentality
should have offered so lame and arbitrary an explanation
is convincing proof that Paul’s words on this memorable
occasion cannot be made to square with the doctrine of
the Pauline mystery Church as it is held by
Dispensationalists. What was Paul’s whole ministry if
not a ministry of instruction? What was the doctrine of
Gentile salvation and equality with the Jews if it was not
instruction? Was not the history of Paul’s career the
story of the way in which his insistence on this instruction
had finally made of him a prisoner on trial before the
Roman governor? Here Scofield was wiser than Darby.
Instead of adopting Darby’s lame defense he attempted
none, leaving chap. 26 without footnote and vss. 22-23
almost without comment.92
. . . a clear proof that the gospel proclaims nothing that
was not foretold by the prophets. 90
He did not understand JND and also left out JND’s next
sentence:
Going for the jugular vein of dispensational truth, O. T. Allis
wrote:
He does not speak of the assembly -- that was a doctrine
for instruction, and not a part of his history. But
everything that related to his personal history, in
connection with his ministry, he gives in detail. 93
Here again was a splendid opportunity to preach the
mystery doctrine of the Church. Paul not merely does not
do this; but he declares emphatically that he has been
preaching nothing which Moses and the prophets had not
foretold. What clearer illustration could be found of the
need of giving heed to Paul’s words, “as it hath now been
revealed” (Eph. 3:5), when he speaks of the mystery? 91
Do you see the construction he put on Eph. 3:5? In other
words, the mystery is what the OT prophets prophesied. Why
then did the mystery need to be revealed? Well, this is the
result of refusing the express statements of Scripture. Notice
how he picked on Eph. 3:5 which he thought he could make it
say that the mystery is the subject of OT prophets. He did not
pick the following Scriptures:
Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my
glad tidings and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according
to [the] revelation of [the] mystery, as to which silence has
been kept in [the] times of the ages, but [which] has now
been made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures,
according to commandment of the eternal God, made
known for obedience of faith to all the nations (Rom.
16:25, 26).
. . . and to enlighten all [with the knowledge of] what
is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the
ages in God, who has created all things, (Eph. 3:9).
90. P. Mauro, The Hope of Israel, p. 29.
91. O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 151.
The truth is, the meaning is too obvious for JND to spend more
words on the matter because of the general brevity of the
Synopsis. If there is a problem of lameness, in view of
excellent mentality, O. T. Allis would have done well to look
closer to home. Coming to the context of v. 23, F. G.
Patterson wrote:
But the Jews being his accusers, and king Agrippa being
one who knew the prophets and was versed in the Jewish
Scriptures, the statements of the verses quoted (vv. 22,23)
rather show that he was saying nothing contrary to the
testimony of God in the Scriptures, which the Jews who
accused him professed to accept. 94
Those who have no animosity against JND ought to see the
agreement of this with his quoted remark about Paul’s history.
Acts 28:20, 23-25, 28
For this cause therefore I have called you to [me] to see
and to speak to you; for on account of the hope of Israel
I have this chain about me (Acts 28:20).
And having appointed him a day many came to him to the
lodging, to whom he expounded, testifying of the
kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus,
93. Synopsis 4:70.
94. F. G. Patterson, Scripture Notes & Queries, (Oak Park: Bible Truth
Publishers, 1961).
202
both from the law of Moses and the prophets, from early
morning to evening. And some were persuaded of the
things which were said, but some disbelieved. And being
disagreed among themselves they left; Paul having
spoken one word, Well spoke the Holy Ghost through
Esaias the prophet to our fathers, saying . . . (Acts 28:2325).
Be it known to you therefore, that this salvation of God
has been sent to the nations; they also will hear [it] (Acts
28:28).
This is the last text in Acts to which O. T. Allis devoted a
section, 95 but it adds nothing. We already saw, above, that
“the hope of Israel” is the Messiah Himself. It was on account
of Paul’s service to Christ that he was bound. This is useless to
prove that the prophesied kingdom is a spiritual kingdom now.
But, citing v. 23, P. Mauro claims that:
Inasmuch as those Jews were thoroughly indoctrinated
with the then current Jewish teaching, it needed, of
course, much exposition and persuasion, and the
enlightenment of the Spirit of God besides, to make
evident to them that what Moses and the prophets had
foretold was a spiritual kingdom, which was to be
established through the sufferings and death of the
expected Messiah of Israel.96
Then after citing vv. 25-27 he concluded:
Further, in light of the Dispensationalist’s claims
that the Jews have different promises and a divergent
destiny than the church (see p. 33), how can this be
reconciled with Paul’s claim that his hope and Israel’s are
one and the same? It would be to the Dispensationalist a
contradiction par excellence for a Christian to be jailed
for believing a Jewish hope. Yet this was why Paul was
in chains.100
Why does he say that Paul was in chains “for believing a Jewish
hope”? not in chains because he preached that there would be
no such kingdom. In Eph. 3:1 he stated that he was “prisoner
of Christ Jesus for you nations.” How so? When giving an
account to a crowd of Jews, Paul said, “And he said to me, Go,
for I will send thee to the nations afar off.”
And they heard him until this word, and lifted up their
voice, saying, away with such a one as that from the
earth, for it was not fit that he should live (Acts 22:22).
By this it appears that the hope of Israel, the kingdom of
God and the salvation of God are three different names for
one and the same thing. 97
The Jews would not bear the thought of such Gentile blessing.
It is clear that Paul was in jail on account of his message to
Gentiles, not on account of “believing a Jewish hope.”
And also the Hope of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he
is not a man that he should repent (1 Sam. 15:29).
Concerning J. Zens remarks about “Paul’s claim that his
hope and Israel’s are one and the same,” the fact is that the
same Person is at the center of Israel’s blessings and the
Church’s blessings. The hope of Israel is Christ. He is also
Christ Jesus our hope (1 Tim. 1:1).
Long before, W. Trotter had correctly written:
He is the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises were
made. He is the Son of David, the hope of Israel and of
David’s house. 98
These writers are just as wrong about the hope of Israel as they
are in their notion that “Moses and the prophets had foretold”
a spiritual kingdom.
Speaking of the apostles, P. Mauro says,
Accordingly they were given to know, through the
subsequent revelations of the Holy Spirit, that the
promised kingdom was of spiritual character. . . . 99
Why did the apostles need revelations to tell them, if Moses and
the prophets had already said so? Paul persuaded them from
Moses and the prophets, not from subsequent revelations.
These subsequent revelations allegedly saying that the kingdom
promised in the OT was spiritual, are a figment of his
imagination.
J. Zens, however, understands that Christ is the hope of
Israel. He says:
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
But Dispensationalists must claim that the essence of
Israel’s hopes are still future. They still await (1) a land,
(2) a throne, (3) a king, and (4) a kingdom (Chafer, Syst.
Theo., Vol. 4, p. 7). Was Paul accused of the Jews
because he preached these future “hopes” for Israel? He
preached an exalted Messiah, and the necessity of
repentance (26:20).
Prophecy and the Church, p. 152.
The Hope of Israel, p. 30.
Ibid., p. 31.
Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects, p. 160.
The Hope of Israel, p. 179.
Christ will head up both the earthly sphere (in which Israel
has a special place) and the heavenly sphere (in which the
Church has a special place) (Eph. 1:10).
The fact that all centers in Christ and His glory (manifested
in two spheres) and that Christ is Israel’s hope and the Church’s
hope, hardly begins to show that the OT prophets predicted a
spiritual kingdom now. These anti-millennialist reasons are
very superficial.
Conclusion
I judge that it is safe to conclude that O. T. Allis did not make
good his thesis that the book of Acts shows that the church is the
fulfillment of the OT predictions regarding the future of the
people of God. Not only have we found no evidence of such a
notion, but we also desire to acknowledge Rom. 16:25, 26, Col.
1:26 and Eph. 3:9 in their express statements. Such Scriptures,
received into the soul, tell us how to view the OT prophecies
and that we ought not to have expected to find their fulfillment
in the Church, even as the book of Acts shows.
100. Dispensationalism, p. 18.
Chapter 5.1: Is the Christian a True Jew?
203
Part 5
The True Jew,
The Israel of God
and the Seed of Abraham
In Part 5 we will consider a number of expressions used by
anti-dispensationalists in support of the idea that the church
is the continuator of Israel, is the spiritual Israel, and that the
church is the subject of OT prophecy. These expressions
include, “true Jew,” “the Israel of God,” and “the seed of
Abraham.” Most space will be given to the subject of the
seed of Abraham and so we shall review all of Galatians 3.
(a) Gal. 3:10-12: The Law Curses and Cannot
Justify.
(b) Gal. 3:13,14: Christ Made a Curse in Order to
the Blessing of the Nations and in
Order to the Sealing with the
Spirit.
If the Lord will, we shall proceed in the following way:
Ch. 5.5. Gal. 3:15-18: T h e L a w C a n n o t S e t A s i d e
Promise.
Ch. 5.1. Romans 2:28, 29: Is the Christian a True Jew?
Ch. 5.6. Gal. 3:19-25: Under the Law.
Ch. 5.2. Who Are The Israel of God?
(a) Gal. 3:19-22: Function of the Law.
Ch. 5.3. Gal. 3:1-9: The Principle of Faith as Seen in
Abraham is the Way of Blessing.
(b) Gal. 3:23-25: The Law as a Tutor up to Christ.
Ch. 5.4. Gal. 3:10-14: The Law OR Faith.
Ch. 5.7. Gal. 3:26-29: In Christ and Consequently
Abraham’s Seed.
204
Part 5: The True Jew, Israel of God and Seed of Abraham
Chapter 5.1: Is the Christian a True Jew?
205
Chapter 5.1
A True Jew and
The Israel of God
For he is not a Jew who [is] one outwardly, neither that
circumcision which is outward in flesh; but he [is] a Jew
[who is so] inwardly; and circumcision, of the heart, in spirit, not
in letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God (Rom. 2:28, 29).
Who Is a True Jew?
addressed to, and concerns, Jews. The law cannot make a
Jew answer inwardly to the meaning of circumcision. He is
only a Jew “outwardly” (v. 28). He is a true Jew who is an
Israelite that answers spiritually to the meaning God had in
view concerning circumcision. However, although a Gentile
believer answers spiritually to the meaning of circumcision,
it does not follow that he is “a true Jew.”
It is interesting that those who understand Scripture
dispensationally are accused of Judaizing because they say that
animal sacrifices will be reinstated in the millennium, for
Israel; but the same objectors might claim that a Christian is
a true Jew. 1 The idea that a Christian is a true Jew comes
from the idea that the church is the spiritual Israel, the
continuator of Israel. Coupled with this is the notion that the
church is “the Israel of God.” This scheme is Judaistic and so
what such designate “the moral law” is said to be the rule of
life. 2
In actuality, those who say that a Christian is a true Jew and
part of the Israel of God have assumed what needs to be
proved. Rom. 2:1-16 is addressed to Gentiles while Rom.
2:17-29 is addressed to Jews. To many Christians it is an
unacceptable procedure to find in Rom. 2:17-29, that God is
saying that a Gentile Christian is a true Jew.
But if thou art named a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest
thy boast in God . . . (Rom. 2:17).
If, in the face of such explicit address, persons may find in
vv. 28 & 29 that Gentile believers are true Jews, then there
will be no end of what one finds in texts in order to support
a theological system. It is obvious that the passage is
1. “Only those who are Jews inwardly, only believers. . .” R. B. Yerby,
The Once and Future Israel, Swengel: Reiner, 1978, p. 56 and see p. 61.
L. De Caro remarked, “Even if we were to exclude the Christian connotation
. . .,” Israel Today: Fulfillment of Prophecy? Presbyterian and Reformed,
1974, p. 120. So if you cannot put the Gentile into vv. 28,29, you can at
least have the connotation!
C.E.B. Cranfield wrote: “It is clear that in these verses Paul is in some
sense denying the name of Jew to those who are only outwardly Jews and not
also secretly and inwardly and at the same time according it to those who are
secretly and inwardly Jews but not outwardly Jews at all,” Romans, A
Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985, p. 59.
2. In reality, the NT does not make the distinction between the moral and
ceremonial law.
We will consider the meaning of circumcision and then
return to the distinction between a true Jew (one of “the Israel
of God”) and a Gentile believer. A helpful summary of the
meaning of circumcision is given in Morrish’s Bible
Dictionary, pp. 170,171:
Circumcision. The rite appointed by God to be a token of
the covenant that He made with Abraham and his seed, and
also the seal of the righteousness of his faith. Every male
in Abraham’s house was to be circumcised, and afterwards
every male of his seed on the eighth day after birth. It
signified the separation of a people from the world to God.
During the 40 years in the wilderness this rite was not
performed, but on entering God’s land all were
circumcised at Gilgal, when the reproach of Egypt was
rolled away. Jos. 5:2-9. Circumcision became a synonym
for Israel, so that they could be spoken of as ‘the
circumcised,’ and the heathen as ‘the uncircumcised.’ Jud.
14:3; Eze. 31:18; Acts 11:3. Contrary to the design of
God, circumcision became a mere formal act, when the
covenant itself was disregarded, and God then speaks of
Israel as having ‘uncircumcised hearts.’ Stephen charged
the Jewish council with being ‘uncircumcised in heart and
ears.’ Lev. 26:41; Acts 7:51. In Rom. 4 Abraham is
shown to be ‘the father of circumcision,’ that is, of all that
believe as the truly separated people of God.
Hence circumcision is typical of the putting off the
body of the flesh by those who accept the cross as the end
of all flesh, because Christ was there cut off as to the
flesh: see Col. 2:11: “In whom also ye are circumcised
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off
the body of the [sins of the] flesh by the circumcision of
Christ”; and again, “We are the circumcision which
worship God by the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and
have no confidence in the flesh.” Phil. 3:3. “Mortify
206
therefore your members which are upon the earth” Col.
3:5.
A true Jew is an Israelite who answers spiritually to the
meaning of circumcision. A Gentile believer also answers
spiritually to the meaning of circumcision. Thus all believers,
whether Jew or Gentile, answer spiritually to the meaning of
circumcision. Hence, Paul, speaking of all Christians in
contrast to others who trust in flesh, wrote:
See to dogs, see to evil workmen, see to the concision.
For we are the circumcision, who worship by [the] Spirit
of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh
(Phil. 3:2, 3).
Because Paul wrote of all believers, “we are the circumcision,”
it does not follow that all believers are true Jews. Some
believers are true Jews (Jews) and some believers (Gentiles)
are not.
Who Are the Israel of God?
Use is made of Gal. 6:16 by those wishing to show that “the
church is the new Israel.” It is claimed that the phrase “the
Israel of God” means the church. There is no necessity to so
understand the phrase.
And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace upon them
and mercy, and upon the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16).
A. Marshall translated v. 16 as follows:
And as many as by this rule will walk, peace on them and
mercy, and upon the Israel of God. 3
Walking by “this rule” means walking by the rule of the new
creation, Christ Himself, not the law. When you read Gal.
6:16 and look for the rule, go to v. 15, not Exodus.
Christians are not always only viewed as those united to
Christ as His body; though, of course, every saint sealed with
the Spirit is, in fact, united to Christ as His body. Such are
also viewed in other ways. Gal. 6:16 is an example of this:
Q. -- Gal. 6:16. Does this scripture give any sanction to the
idea that we, believers from among the Gentiles, are now
“the Israel of God”? What is the true force?
A. -- The verse plainly intimates two classes, the general
one of the saints who walk as Christians by the rule of the
new creation in Christ, and the specified one, not of Israel
now no longer for the time God’s people, but such of them
as were true to the Christ they were baptized unto (where is
neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Him), who are
therefore designated “the Israel of God.” 4
The distinction is also seen elsewhere as in Rom. 2:28 where
we saw that a Jew was one who was so inwardly. Think of the
Lord’s commendation of Nathaniel: “Behold [one] truly an
Israelite . . .” (John 1:47). Rom. 9:6 also shows that there are
true Jews of Jewish blood. Rom. 11:7 clearly distinguishes the
believing Jews, 5 designated “the election,” from “the rest”
3. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, London: Bagster, 1964,
p. 757.
4. The Bible Treasury 20:252. See also 12:366.
5. Postmillennial reconstructionists may wax rather wild on this subject,
stating that:
(continued...)
who have been blinded. Why not understand that such alone
are “the Israel of God”?
Moreover, the fact is that in the NT Israel means Israel,
always, never the church. Theology imposes upon the word
“Israel” the meaning of church and then says: see, there is
proof that the church is Israel and was a subject of the O.T.
prophecies.
The way in which the church is transmuted into the Israel
of God in this passage is by translating “even (6"4) upon the
Israel of God.” John Eadie asked if 6"4 can be understood as
a word linking a noun to its explanation (instead of being a link
of two nouns). He concluded that there is no other example
that would be as “peculiarly distinctive” as Gal. 6:16 would be
if understood that way. He went on to write:
2. The simple copulative meaning is not to be
departed from, save on very strong grounds; and there is
no ground for such a departure here, so that the Israel of
God are a party included in, and yet distinct from, the
@F@4.
3. The apostle is not in the habit of calling the church
made up of Jews and Gentiles -- Israel. Israel is used
eleven times in Romans, but in all the instances it refers to
Israel proper; and so do it and 3FD"084J0 in every other
portion of the New Testament. In the Apocalypse, the
144,000 sealed of Israel stand in contrast to “the great
multitude which no man can number,” taken out of the
Gentile or non-Israelitish races. Rev. 7:9. The “Israelite
indeed” is also one by blood. John 1:47; comp. 1 Cor.
10:18. The @F@4 may not be Gentile believers as such,
and opposed to Jewish believers, but the entire number
who walk according to this rule; while Paul finds among
them a certain class to whom his heart turns with
instinctive fondness -- “the Israel of God.” Jatho’s
distinction is baseless -- the one party being those who,
warned by this epistle, should renounce their error and
walk according to this rule; and the other, those who had
uniformly held the sacred and evangelical doctrine. It may
be said indeed, on the one hand, that the apostle has been
proving that the Jew, as a Jew, has no privilege above the
Gentiles, that both Jew and Gentile are on a level, so that
both believing Jews and Gentiles may therefore be called
Israel. It may be replied, however, that the apostle never
in any place so uses the name, never gives the grand old
theocratic name to any but the chosen people.
4. To the apostle there were two Israels – “they are
not all Israel which are of Israel,” -- and he says here, not
Israel 6"J" F"D6", but “the Israel of God,” or the true
believing Israel; his own brethren by a double tie -- by
blood, and especially by grace. Was it unnatural for the
apostle to do this, especially after rebuking false Israel -the wretched Judaizers – who certainly were not the Israel
of God? 6
5. (...continued)
James designates Christians as “the twelve tribes which are
scattered abroad” (James 1:1). Peter calls the Christians to whom
he writes, the “diaspora” (Gk., 1 Peter 1:1),” Greg L. Bahnsen
and K. L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided, The Breakup of
Dispensational Theology, Tyler:
Institute for Christian
Economics, 1989, p. 169.]
6. The John Eadie Greek Text Commentaries, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979
reprint, pp. 416,417.
Chapter 5.2: The Principle of Faith
207
Chapter 5.2
Galatians 3:1-9:
The Principle of Faith
as Seen in Abraham
is the Way of Blessing
The Issue in Gal. 3
Troublesome “law-teachers, not understanding either what
they say or concerning what they [so] strenuously affirm”
(1 Tim. 1:7) had been influencing the Galatian saints (Gal.
1:7-9; 3:1; 4:9,17-21; 5:7-10; 6:12-13). Thus, Galatians
deals with the fact that being under the law profits the
Christian nothing. One of the issues is whether or not the
inheritance is ours by law or by promise. In Gal. 3 we see
the effect of the law upon one who is under it (Gal. 3:10).
The other thing we see is the absolute contrast between law
and promise, it being established that the inheritance is by
promise and cannot be by law, and so in his paper, “Not
Law, but Promise, Galatians 3,” J. N. Darby wrote:
The law and promise in grace are brought before us as
two systems, both of God, but contrasted in their nature
and opposite in their effects, and absolutely exclusive one
of the other; existing at separate times, though the second
could not disannul the first, and whose co-existence, as
the ground of man’s standing with God, is in their very
nature impossible. Both are positive dealings and
revealed ways of God with man, each of its own kind. .
..
The Galatians were not rejecting the promise or
Christ; but they were adding the law to Christ as
completing God’s will. This it is that the apostle resists,
and declares the incompatibility of the two. Not that the
law was against the promises (for if a law had been given
which could have given life, righteousness would have
been by it); but that the one system was in fact opposite
in its principle to the other. They were two distinct ways
proposed for having life, righteousness, and the
inheritance. One brings a curse and nothing else; the
other a blessing after God’s own heart, and nothing else.
One is founded on man’s responsibility, the other on
God’s gift, when man had failed altogether under that
responsibility. 7
Christ in glory and the Spirit sent down consequently (Acts
2:32, 33) characterize Christianity, while law characterizes
OT Judaism.
Common Blessings And Special Privileges
In view of the confounding and confusing all blessings as is
characteristic in antidispensational views we should observe
the fact that there are common blessings for all saints and
special privileges for those saints who are members of the
body of Christ. W. Kelly observed:
There are certain privileges that we share in common
with every saint. Abraham believed God, and it was
counted to him for righteousness. We too believe and
are justified. Substantially, faith has so far the same
blessings at all times. We are children of promise,
entering into the portion of faith as past saints have done
before us; and this is what we find in Galatians, though
with a certain advance of blessing for us. But if you
look at Ephesians, the great point there is that God is
bringing out wholly new and heavenly privileges. This
is in no respect what is taken up in Galatians. There we
are on the common ground of promises. “If ye be
Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs
according to the promise.” But in Ephesians there are
certain distinct and superadded privileges that Abraham
never thought nor heard of: I mean the formation of the
Church of God, Christ’s body, the truth that Jews and
Gentiles were to be taken out of earthly places, and made
one with Christ in heaven. This was the mystery
concerning Christ and the Church, hidden from ages and
generations, but now revealed through the Holy Ghost.
So that, in order to have a right view of the full blessing
of the Christian, we must take the Ephesian blessing
along with the Galatian. The special time is while Christ
is on the right hand of God. Even as to the millennial
saints, do you think they will enjoy all that we have
now? Far from it. They will possess much that we do
not, such as the manifested glory of Christ, exemption
7. Collected Writings 21:299,300.
208
from sorrow and suffering, &c. But our calling is totally
different and contrasted. It is to love Him whom we have
not seen; to rejoice in the midst of tribulation and shame.
If a man were to form his thoughts of Christianity from
Galatians only, he might confound the saints now with
those of the Old Testament, always remembering the
difference that we find here, that the heir as long as he is
under age differs nothing from a servant; whereas we are
brought into the full possession of our privileges. But
there are other and higher things in Ephesians, called, or
at least flowing from, the eternal purpose of God. So
that it is well to distinguish this double truth -- the
community of blessing through all dispensations, and the
specialty of privilege that attaches to those who are being
called now by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. 8
In the above quotation it was pointed out that “Galatians never
takes up 9 the standing of the church properly” (though
referred to in Gal. 3:28) and that this epistle does not go
“beyond the inheritance of promise.” In connection with the
fact that the inheritance of the promise is a subject of
Galatians, W. Kelly also remarked:
Another writer, . . . referred to Rom. 11 and Gal. 3 in
proof that the Church actually existed as such in Old
Testament times. But this is evidently to confound things
that differ, because the inheritance of the Abrahamic
promises, of which their chapters treat, is not identical
with the enjoyment of the Church’s privileges; whereas
their identity is assumed in the argument. It is allowed
that the New Testament saints do inherit those promises,
but that is an essentially different thing from the blessings
revealed, e.g. in Ephesians. The olive {Rom. 11}] is not
the heavenly Church, but the earthly tree of promise and
testimony, of which the Jews were the natural branches.
Instead of the broken-off unfaithful branches, Gentiles are
now grafted in; but, on their unfaithfulness, excision is
the sure threat of God, and the Jews will again be brought
into their own olive-tree, i.e. for the millennial
inheritance. This is the plain teaching of Rom. 11; and,
though as Gentiles we may be grafted in, and as
individuals we may be Abraham’s seed, the special
position of Christ’s body, as made known in
1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, &c. is too distinct
to require argumentation. When “the body” is spoken of,
there is no cutting off nor grafting in. 10 There is in it
8. Lectures on the Epistle of Paul . . . to the Galatians, London: Morrish,
n.d., pp. 116,117.
9. What is meant by “never takes up” is that the subject of the standing of the
church is not developed in Galatians. The new creation is, of course,
mentioned.
10. . The Calvinist and amillennialist, O. T. Allis wrote:
There is, Paul tells us, one good olive tree. Some of the branches
are broken off. Branches from a wild olive are grafted in among
the branches which remain, that they “may partake of the root and
fatness of the olive tree.” The new branches represent Gentile
Christians. It would be difficult to state more clearly that the
Gentiles in entering the Christian Church become members of a
body, a church or theocracy, which has its roots in the Abrahamic
(continued...)
neither Jew nor Gentile. All is above nature there.
What is the inheritance? Rom. 4:13,16 gives us the answer. The
reader should also see Letters of J. N. Darby 3:241-243.
Senselessness (v. 1)
O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you; to whom,
as before your very eyes, Jesus Christ has been
portrayed, crucified [among you]? (Gal. 3:1).
Someone wrote:
We learn here the particular form the apostle’s ministry
had taken in those parts. Considerable variety in style is
to be remarked in Paul’s labors.
Among the
Thessalonians the Lord’s coming was a very prominent
theme; among the Athenians, stress was laid upon man’s
original relation to God as His creature; in Galatia and in
Corinth the cross was to the front. It will be noticed that
sometimes we read in the New Testament of the blood of
Christ, sometimes of the death, and in other places of the
cross. This is not in vain. The Spirit has a different line
of truth for our souls in each of these varied expressions.
The blood is particularly found (though not exclusively)
in Hebrews, where the main theme is the atonement and
its mighty results; the death of Christ is dwelt upon in
Romans as the end of His life below, in which faith finds
the end of the old man and all that pertains to him; the
cross is before us in Galatians as an emblem of shame.
The cross pours contempt on man and all his efforts, and
is thus to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks
foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23). 11
“Paul, apostle, not from men nor through man, but through
Jesus Christ . . .” (Gal. 1:1) did not come to them preaching
Adam, the first man (1 Cor. 15:47). He set before them One
Who had been cast out from the earth by the first man under
law.
He censured any who proclaimed glad tidings other than
what had been announced to them by saying: “let him be
10. (...continued)
covenant and to which all true descendants of Abraham belong.
The tree represents the true Israel. Faith is the bond of union.
Some of the natural branches have been broken off because of
unbelief. Branches of a wild olive are grafted in among them
(i.e., among the good branches that are left) on the basis of faith.
From this Paul draws two important and weighty inferences. The
first is that, since unbelief caused the breaking off of some of the
natural branches, the branches of the new graft owe their present
status, their participation in the root and fatness of the olive tree,
solely to faith. If they become unbelieving, they will be cut off.
(Prophecy and the Church, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1947, pp.
108,109).
It follows that the whole nation of Israel was in the olive tree and were “the
true Israel” which is obviously false. Present participation, he claims, is
“solely to faith.” But “if they become unbelievers” sounds quite Arminian
to me. A member of Christ’s body does not “become” an unbeliever.
Notice also that he equates “members of a body” with a “theocracy.” The
truth is that he does not understand what the olive tree is on account of his
system that finds the church in O. T. prophecy.
Chapter 5.2: The Principle of Faith
accursed” (Gal. 1:9). Evil in doctrine rather than in behavior
is before the apostle. Such evil teachers may be ever so nice
personally and appear godly in conduct, but they fall under
this censure. And, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”
(Gal. 5:6).
209
In 1 Cor. 1 Paul did not commend anything in the walk
of the Corinthians. Rather, 1 Cor 1:4-9 commends the grace
of God given to them. In Gal. 1 there is not even this. 12
Such is the mind of the Spirit concerning fundamental
doctrinal evil compared to moral evil, which also is leaven,
of course (1 Cor. 5:6).
man, man in his Adamic standing and responsibility. God
has established the second man (Christ) and the trial of the
first man ended in the cross. Hence the change denoted in
Gal. 3:23-25) where Christ displaces the law. The Spirit, as
indweller, could not be received while the first man, in the
persons of the Jews, were under testing, under law. The
reception of the Spirit, then, is evidence of the fruitlessness
of the principle of works of law.
Paul had not gone into
Galatia preaching Christ and law, faith and law. Those who
believed the gospel received the Spirit. Subsequently,
Judaizers were preaching law to them. But:
In v. 1, Paul says “O senseless Galatians.” In v. 3 he
says, “so senseless.” The senselessness consisted not in lack
of native intelligence but in dullness of heart and mind in
spiritual matters. Law-works seem to bind many professed
Christians in a spell as appeared to be the case of the
Galatians under the influence of Judaizers; hence the word
bewitched, used figuratively.
The law applied to life in the flesh and its obligations.
The cross declares its condemnation and end in death,
and death to it. They had not received the Spirit by law
but by faith. They had the Spirit, and begun in it when
they had not the law at all, and they were now looking to
be made perfect through the latter, but this was by the
flesh; for the law supposed flesh to be alive and applied
to it. 13
The law addressed the old “I.” Under the law the old
“I” had a standing (in Adamic responsibility) before God.
Here is what Paul had written about “I” :
They were sealed with the Spirit apart from works of law.
Was that seal defective and insufficient that they must add
works of law? Observe also that the Spirit is not now
received by “tarrying” or “rushing” or any other way but by
faith in the Person and work of Christ.
For I, through law, have died to law, that I may live to
God. I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live, I, but
Christ lives in me; but [in] that I now live in flesh, I live
by faith, the [faith] of the Son of God, who has loved me
and given himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of
God; for if righteousness [is] by law, then Christ has died
for nothing (Gal. 2:19-21).
In whatever degree law is taken up by a Christian, to that
degree he sets aside the grace of God. “Who has bewitched
you?” asked the apostle. He had graphically portrayed
Christ crucified before their eyes and now they had diverted
their eyes from that as insufficient and were looking at the
law. No doubt the hand of the Enemy was in this (cf. 2 Cor.
11:13-15).
Receiving The Spirit (v. 2)
This only I wish to learn of you, Have ye received the
Spirit on the principle of works of law, or of [the] report
of faith? (Gal. 3:2).
Observe that Paul begins with the effect of an accomplished
redemption. The Spirit was never received on the principle
of works of law; never. The Spirit is received as power for
a Christ honoring walk, which is the fruit of Christ’s death,
resurrection and glorification above to be head of the body
formed at Pentecost (1 Cor. 12:13, Acts 2:32, 33, etc.),
which we will consider in some detail when we come to
v. 14. Faith, as the basis of a standing before God, has
replaced the law (Gal. 3:23-25). The law addressed the first
12. The oft repeated notion that Paul always began his epistles by
commending what he could in the walk of the saints is false.
The reader should note that the word “the” does not
appear before the word “law” in this verse. The words “on
the principle of works of the law” does not carry quite the
same sense as “on the principle of works of law.” “The
law” would indicate the law of Moses; whereas without the
word “the,” what is presented to the mind is law as a
principle. Thus, the Spirit is not received on such a principle
as law. This, of course, includes the law, but is a wider
statement dealing with the whole idea, or principle, of law.
On such a basis as law, the Spirit cannot be received. What
goes with law is flesh; and that brings us to v. 3.
Made Perfect in Flesh (v. 3)?
Are ye so senseless? having begun in Spirit, are ye going
to be made perfect in flesh? (

Elements of Dispensational Truth - Volume 1

Transcription

Similar documents

Recursos para la Parroquia Encíclica del Papa Francisco

Instruments of Your Peace

A Nativity Scene Prayer - Catholic Relief Services Fair Trade

Ramtha`s Affirmation to Call forth the Christ within you Beloved

HERE

Slajd 1 - Our Lady of Loreto Catholic Parish

Study Guide - Bethany Community Church

Raiatea Helm, Grammy- award nominee and Na Hoku Hanohano

The Peace of the Cross

Italian Quattrocento Painting